Hi wm& 

■ ■ 







■ 



■ •' HEM 
















H 








&w 




iV • v-, 




apf 













HHMHSWimin iiill 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

Chap...H J Copyright No. 



Shelf. 



:1.__1_. 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 



li= 







'©£^4* 










THE TWENTIETH CENTUR Y LIBRAR Y 



MODERN SOCIALISM 



MODERN SOCIALISM 



BY 

REV. CHARLES H. VAIL 

Author of the " National Ownership of Railways ' 



* Read not to contradict nor believe, but to weigh and consider " 

Francis Bacon 






M 



NEW YORK 
THE HUMBOLDT LIBRARY 

64 Fifth Avenue 






Copyright, 1897, 

BY 

REV. CHARLES H. VAIL, 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

PAGE 

The Meaning of Socialism 9 

CHAPTER II. 
The Origin of Socialism 14 

CHAPTER HI. 
The Economic Evolution 19 

CHAPTER IV. 

Advantages of Socialism in the Production, Distribution, and 

Consumption of Wealth 29 

CHAPTER V. 

The Postulates of Socialism in Regard to Money, Value, and - 
Wages 45 

CHAPTER VI. 
The Question of Interest 59 

CHAPTER VII. 
Competition vs. Combination 63 

CHAPTER VIII. 
Industrial Democracy, or Democratic Government 67 

CHAPTER IX. 
The Moral Strength of the Co-operative Commonwealth 77 



CONTENTS. 
CHAPTER X. 

PAGS 

Socialism and Modern Problems 81 

I.— The Liquor Traffic '. 81 

2. — Poverty 84 

3. — Labor-Saving Machinery 87 

4. — Taxation 95 

5. — Illiteracy 97 

6.— The Solution 98 

CHAPTER XI. 

Industrial Depressions and Crises 101 

CHAPTER XII. 

The Condition of Labor, Past and Present — Comparison 114 

CHAPTER XIII. 

Capitalism and Economic Waste 123 

CHAPTER XIV. 

Misconceptions and Objections Considered 132 

1. — As to Equality 132 

2. — As to Property 132 

3. — As to the Family 133 

4. — As to Inheritance 136 

5. — As to State Socialism 136 

6. — As to Publications 138 

7. — As to Socialism and Slavery 139 

8. — As to Disagreeable Work 140 

9. — As to the Destruction of Liberty and Freedom 142 

10. — As to Motives to Industry 147 

11. — As to the Confiscation of Property 152 

12. — As to Corruption of Politics 155 

13. — As to the Character of the Exponents of Socialism. 160 

14- — As to Socialism and Paternalism 161 

15- — As to Socialism and Anarchism 163 

CHAPTER XV. 

Conclusion 164 

Index 171 



PREFACE. 



It has been my purpose in this volume to present, in as 
concise a form as practicable, the principles and purposes of 
Socialism. 

The growth of Socialism has been phenomenal. Its rapid 
spread surpasses that of early Christianity, with which it has 
many features in common. It has become international and 
cosmopolitan in character. 

The importance of the movement is sufficient reason for 
the publication of this book, but this is not the principal 
reason it is put forth. As a clergyman, believing in the 
Kingdom of God, and realizing our apparent distance from 
the ideal, some years ago I began to seek a solution of the 
problem. I had not proceeded far upon my investigation 
before being impressed by the incongruity between the de- 
mands of the Kingdom of God, and the demands of our 
economic system. I saw clearly their incompatibility, and 
the hopelessness of realizing the former under the environ- 
ment of the latter. I became convinced after a careful study 
of the various phases of sociological thought, that it is use- 
less to hope that the ideal of the ages — peace, justice and 
plenty — would be realized under the antagonisms of our 
competitive system. But to substitute co-operation for com- 
petition would be Socialism. 

There have been so much calumny and vituperation heaped 
upon this word, due partly to ignorance and prejudice and 

5 



PREFACE. 



partly to wilful misconception, that my first thought was to 
do as many have done, — adopt the theory under the name 
Nationalism, Mutualism, or Collectivism. But no word is so 
well adapted to express the doctrine of the social ownership 
and management of the means of production and distribu- 
tion as Socialism. It stands for one of the highest ideals of 
which it is possible for the human mind to conceive. I de- 
cided, therefore, not to be swayed by ignorance and preju- 
dice, nor by the calumny of the privileged classes. People 
are beginning to understand the meaning of Socialism, 
and the aversion to the use of the word will surely dis- 
appear, in spite of the misrepresentations employed by the 
defenders of capitalism to discredit it before the world. In 
fact, it is rapidly disappearing. So great has been the change 
of late that even to-day one need not hesitate to proclaim 
himself a Socialist. 

Prof. Ely informs us that nearly all the great Economists 
are believers in industrial democracy, which is Socialism. 
The highest possibilities can only be realized by united effort. 
There would have been but little progress had men not united 
their efforts for the good of the common weal. The pro- 
cedure under the haphazard methods of private enterprise is 
akin to barbarism. We have already, in many fields, re- 
placed chance and private enterprise with intellectual co- 
operation, and we need but extend the principle to realize 
the ideal. The very basis of society is co-operation, and 
civilization is measured by the extent of its attainment. 

In this period of modern industry the progress of concen- 
tration has been so accelerated that the prophecy of com- 
plete unification is no longer considered Utopian. This in- 
evitable evolution of the social order has not only evidenced 
the possibility of Socialism, but also its necessity. 

Being thus convinced that Socialism is the only solution 
of modern problems and absolutely essential to a higher 



PREFACE. j 

state of civilization, I have written this book, hoping that it 
may contribute to a better understanding of the subject, and 
may thus hasten the new social order, expressive of the 
brotherhood of man and the solidarity of human interests. 

All the economic features of Socialism have been treated 
and the usual objections noted, and I think satisfactorily 
answered. 

I send this book forth, hoping that its pages may be pe- 
rused in the spirit of fairness, and that it may be the means 
of winning adherents to the cause it represents. 

Charles H. Vail. 
Jersey City, N. J., 
April, 1897. 



MODERN SOCIALISM. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE MEANING OF SOCIALISM. 

The word Socialism, which is of English origin, was first 
used in 1835. A variety of meanings have been attached to 
the term, it often being employed in a broad and general 
sense, signifying the rejection of selfishness, and affirming 
altruism as the principle of social action. It thus recognizes 
Society as a growing organism, and not a mere aggregation 
of individuals. In this sense of the word the great Econo- 
mists of all ages have been Socialists, in contradistinction to a 
small class called Individualists. Professor Ely quotes from 
Dr. Wescott, Bishop of Durham, the following definition of 
Socialism, which well indicates the distinction between these 
two classes:—" Individualism regards humanity as made up 
of disconnected or warring atoms. Socialism regards it as 
an organic whole. . . . The aim of Socialism is the fulfil- 
ment of service ; the aim of individualism is the attainment of 
some personal advantage— riches, place, or fame. Socialism 
seeks such an organization of life as shall secure for every 
one the most complete development of his powers ; indi- 
vidualism seeks primarily the satisfaction of the particular 
wants of each one, in the hope that the pursuit of private 
interests will, in the end, secure public welfare." * 

But the word Socialism has come to be employed in a 

1 Socialism and Social Reform, p. 4. 

9 



MODERN SOCIALISM. 



more definite and economic sense, and signalizes an indus- 
trial society of which the main features are clear and dis- 
tinct. This economic system is commonly denominated 
" Scientific Socialism. " That we may attain a clear concep- 
tion of what this means, let me give a few definitions 
which will clear away certain popular and inaccurate ideas, 
and at the same time present the most salient points in the 
programme of Socialism. 

Professor Ely defines Socialism as follows : — " Socialism 
is that contemplated system of industrial society which 
proposes the abolition of private property in the great 
material instruments of production, and the substitution 
therefor of collective property ; and advocates the collective 
management of production, together with the distribution of 
social income by society, and private property in the larger 
proportion of this social income.'' * 

Dr. Schaffie, in his Quintessence of Socialism, gives the 
following as the real aim of Socialism : — " To replace the 
system of private capital (i. e. the speculative method of 
production, regulated on behalf of society only by the free 
competition of private enterprises) by a system of collective 
capital, that is, by a method of production which would 
introduce a unified (social or "collective") organization of 
national labor, on the basis of collective or common owner- 
ship of the means of production by all the members of the 
society. This collective method of production would re- 
move the present competitive system, by placing under 
official administration such departments of production as 
can be managed collectively (socially or co-operatively), as 
well as the distribution among all of the common produce 
of all, according to the amount and social utility of the 
productive labor of each." 2 



1 Socialism and Social Reform, p. 19. 

2 Quintessence of Socialism, p. 3. 



THE MEANING OF SOCIALISM. n 



Mr. Thomas Kirkup in his book, An Inquiry into Social- 
ism, says : — " The essence of Socialism is this : it proposes 
that industry be carried on by associated laborers jointly 
owning the means of production (land and capital). Where- 
as industry is at present conducted by private and compet- 
ing capitalists served by wage labor, it must in the future be 
carried on by associated labor, with a collective capital, 
and with a view to an equitable system of distribution " 

( P . ii). 

The Standard Dictionary defines Socialism as: — "A 
theory of civil polity that aims to secure the reconstruction 
of society, increase of wealth, and a more equal distribution 
of the products of labor through the public collective owner- 
ship of land and capital (as distinguished from property), 
and the public collective management of all industries. Its 
motto is, ■ Every one according to his deeds/ " 

These definitions give in general outline the meaning of 
Socialism (which has come to denote a specific theory of 
industrial society) as contradistinguished from capitalism. 

We learn from these definitions that one of the primal 
elements of modern Socialism is the common ownership of 
the instruments of production. Society as a whole would 
supplant individual control of land and capital, that the 
advantages of ownership may accrue to the collectivity. With 
the socialization of the means of production, interest and 
rent, the remuneration of private ownership will cease. 

The accomplishment of this result is easy of imagination, 
inasmuch as the post-office has already been socialized, and 
in some countries the telegraph and railways. The exten- 
sion of the process until all the means of production are 
brought under collective control, would realize the ideal. 
Exclusive social ownership, however, is not necessarily 
implied, but the centralization must be extended so that the 
collective ownership shall dominate and control all other 



! 2 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

ownership. All the great instruments of production must 
become collective property. This would confine the social 
action of individuals within narrow limits, but would not 
inhibit their acquisition on a small scale of the means of 
production. Their restraint, however, would not be arbi- 
trary but indirect, through the superior results of social 
production. 

The ownership of the means of production carries with it 
another element in Socialism, — the collective management 
of production. This is in order that the benefits of produc- 
tion may accrue to society as a whole, and that production 
may proceed in accordance with public need. When pro- 
duction is carried on as now for private profit, it ceases as 
soon as it becomes unprofitable. But under Socialism pro- 
duction would be for the purpose of satisfying our needs, and 
so would continue as long as our wants remained unsatisfied ; 
until that end is attained there can be no real over-produc- 
tion. This, of course, would be impossible under the capi- 
talistic system, where production is carried on for profit and 
the benefit of private individuals. As soon as the profit to 
the managers ceases the production ceases. 

Under the Socialist regime, production would be conducted 
for consumption and not for exchange ; the greater the pro- 
duction, the more ample the means of satisfying our wants. 
Society, of course, would furnish employment for all who 
desire it, each person being assigned some function which 
would render him useful. Under such a system the problem 
of the unemployed would be inconceivable. Not only could 
all find employment, but all would have to avail themselves 
of it, for there would be no income without personal ex- 
ertion. 

Another important element of Socialism is the distribu- 
tion of the income of society, — the wealth co-operatively pro- 
duced. Socialism aims at justice in distribution, — such a 



THE MEANING OF SOCIALISM. 13 

distribution as will satisfy all needs and render to each the 
full product of his toil. 

There is one other element of sufficient prominence to 
deserve mention here, — that of private property in income. 
Socialism does not propose to abolish private property in 
wealth as many seem to think, but rather to extend the in- 
stitution of private property and make it more secure. While 
private property in the means of production would be re- 
duced to a minimum, private property in the products of pro- 
duction would be greatly increased and extended. Social- 
ism only desires to abolish private property in that which 
enables one to secure an income at the expense of another, 
without personal exertion. It simply involves a discontin- 
uance of the payment of unearned incomes, and the addi- 
tion to the income of laborers of that wealth which is now 
exacted from them. It declares that no man should be per- 
mitted to live in idleness, by levying a tax or tribute upon 
the labor of others. It proposes to abolish the idlers at 
both ends of the social scale. As all are consumers, so all 
who are physically and mentally able, should be producers. 

Socialism, then, means Justice and Fraternity, — the Uni- 
versal Brotherhood of Man. The Red Flag, — the emblem 
of Socialism, adopted because the blood of all peoples is 
red, — denotes this brotherly love. 

The meaning of Socialism, therefore, is peace, justice, 
prosperity, happiness, altruism and fraternity. 

Note. — For fuller treatment of the main elements of Socialism, see 
Ely's Socialism and Social Reform, ch. ii. 



s 



1 4 MODERN SO CIA LISM. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE ORIGIN OF SOCIALISM. 

Modern Socialism originated in modern industrial con- 
ditions. It is the outcome and product of industrial revolu- 
tion, and has become international as the sweeping changes 
in industry have spread over the civilized nations of the 
globe. Had there been no industrial revolution there would 
be no demand for Socialism. 

The development of industry since the middle ages has 
passed through three successive stages. 

First, — The period of individual, or domestic, production. 
In mediaeval times the laborer possessed individually the 
means of production. As he was both laborer and capital- 
ist there was no dispute over the division of the product. 
The individual producer, by his own labor, brought them 
forth out of raw materials owned or produced by himself. 
Even when there was the help of others, it was only a by- 
matter, — a mere makeshift. The guild apprentice worked 
not so much for remuneration, as to fit himself for master- 
ship. In this period of small industry, property in the pro- 
ducts rested upon man's individual effort. This period of 
primitive production was followed by a period of manufac- 
tures, which began in the middle of the sixteenth century. 

In this era was born the employers of labor, which 
marked as the chief characteristic of this period the employ- 
ment of artisans in manufactories. Thus there arose in this 
manufactural age the wage laborer and the employer, and the 
distinction between these classes has been constantly widen- 



THE ORIGIN OF SOCIALISM. 15 

ing with the concentration of production. It was not, how- 
ever, until the third period that the process was greatly 
accelerated. 

This modern period of industry began with the last third 
of the eighteenth century. The great industrial revolution 
of this era was brought about by a series of inventions, of 
which the following are the most important: — the fly-shuttle, 
invented by Kaye in 1750, which was the first great inven- 
tion to revolutionize the cotton industry of England ; the 
spinning-jenny, invented by Hargreaves in 1770; the water- 
frame, invented by Arkwright in 1769 ; the mule-jenny, in- 
troduced by Crompton in 1779, further improvements being 
made by Kelly of Glasgow and Pollard of Manchester ; the 
steam-engine, patented by Watt in 1769, but not applied 
to the cotton manufacture until sixteen years later ; the 
power-loom, invented by Cartwright in 1785, and the cotton- 
gin invented by Whitney in 1792. These are some of the 
inventions that proved the most fatal to domestic industry, 
and marked the introduction of the factory system. " The 
iron industry," says Prof. Toynbee, " had been equally rev- 
olutionized by the invention of smelting by pit coal, brought 
into use between 1740 and 1750, and by the application in 
1788 of the steam-engine to blast furnaces. In the eight 
years which followed this latter date, the amount of iron 
manufactured nearly doubled itself." l Many other inventions 
and discoveries contributed to the industrial revolution, but 
this will suffice to indicate the cause of the changed methods 
of production. " These inventors," says Prof. Ely, " may, in 
a sense, be called the fathers of modern Socialism, for with- 
out their inventions it could not have come into existence." 

Instead, then, of the paltry and dwarfish productive 
method of a single workshop, there appeared the large fac- 
tory with the combined labor of thousands. And, not only 

1 The Industrial Revolution , Toynbee, p. 91. 



j 6 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

the instruments of production, but production itself, was 
transformed from isolated into social acts, from individual 
into social products. 

As stated by Frederick Engels : — " Alongside of individual, 
social production stepped up. The products of both were 
sold in the same markets, hence at prices at least approxi- 
mately equal. But the planful organization was more power- 
ful than the natural division of labor. The factories that 
worked upon the social plan turned out their wares more 
cheaply than did the individual producer. On one field 
after another individual production was thrown ; until its 
social competitor wholly revolutionized the old method. ,, " 

This change has resulted in concentrating large masses of 
working people in great factories of which they own no 
part ; the smith, the village mechanic, the carpenter, and 
the shoemaker have all nearly disappeared. The cheaper 
products of these great establishments has caused them to 
seek employment in the camp of the enemy. Merchants in 
small villages have not been exempt, and we find them emi- 
grating in search of employment in our great cities. This 
is the result of the concentration of the means of production 
into large workshops and factories. The vast cost of the 
new machinery and the large amount of capital required for 
the new methods of production, gave rise to a capitalistic 
class, — the owners of the means of production. 

With this change in the industrial regime, the means of 
production and the products of the individual producer 
were rendered of but little value. The only way open to 
him was to become a wage-worker under the capitalist. 
Wage labor, which was formerly the exception, became the 
rule. 

The effect of this loss of control, by the workers of the 
means of production, has been to reduce the once independ- 
1 The Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science, p. 16. 



THE ORIGIN OF SOCIALISM. 17 

ent handicraftsmen to the level of wage slaves. They are 
obliged to work for a master, to whom, with the exception 
of barely enough to sustain them in a working condition, 
the product of their labor goes. Their wage bears but 
slight relation to the productive value of their labor, the 
former being determined by the competition of the labor 
market. They must have access to the means of production 
or starve, and that access is obtainable only through the 
competitive wage. It is evident, then, that the ownership 
of the means of production gives men power over their fel- 
lows. Instead of chattel slavery, we have wage slavery. 

Now what is the remedy which Socialism proposes ? It 
says that if the laborers' obsequence was caused through the 
appropriation by a class, of the means of production, their 
emancipation can only be accomplished by their again be- 
coming the owners of the instruments of toil. But individ- 
ual ownership is impossible, owing to the subdivision of 
labor and the immense scale of production. The solution, 
however, is not hopeless, for the change in the nature of 
production gives us a clue to the means by which this di- 
vorce may be reconciled. As production has become social- 
ized, the means of production should also become socialized. 
As tools are used in common, they should be owned in com- 
mon. The private ownership in the instruments of produc- 
tion is becoming more and more incompatible with the 
nature of these instruments. Their magnitude and social 
character mark them for social ownership and management. 
Individual production necessitates private property in the 
means of production ; social production necessitates social 
property in the means of production. Social production, 
with individual ownership of the instruments, means individ- 
ual appropriation of the results of social labor. Although 
the method of production has changed, the method of ap- 
propriation remains unaltered, so that private property, once 



i 8 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

dependent upon individual effort, now principally rests upon 
capitalist exploitation. 

" What could more readily suggest itself than the sociali- 
zation of the instruments of production, to correspond with 
the socialization of production on the one hand, and political 
democracy on the other ? It was something so obvious that 
the workers could not help demanding sooner or later that 
they should have control of industry as they were acquiring 
control of politics ; and that they should have the advantages 
resulting from the ownership of the instruments of produc- 
tion which they used, but which advantages they saw now 
accruing to a distinct class ; namely, the capitalist class. 
1 To the workers the tools ! ? became the rallying cry, which, 
once uttered, was rapidly taken up, and could not cease to 
be echoed and re-echoed." 1 

The conclusion of Socialism, then, is perfectly natural 
and legitimate. All this talk about the importation of So- 
cialism is puerile and absurd. Similar conditions give rise 
to similar thought. The economic conditions which Social- 
ism opposes are the same whether in monarchical Russia or 
in democratic America. 

Socialism, remember, has an economic basis, and is thus 
an industrial, rather than a social or political, proposition. 
Socialists endeavor to attain political supremacy, only as a 
means whereby they may usher in the Co-operative Com- 
monwealth, thus realizing their economic ideals. 

1 Socialism and Social Reform } p. 53. 



THE ECONOMIC EVOLUTION. 19 



CHAPTER III. 

THE ECONOMIC EVOLUTION. 

The economic development, as we have seen, leads to 
the downfall of the small producer, thus divorcing him 
from the means of production and transforming him into 
a propertyless proletarian. It is useless for him to attempt 
competition with large producers on a large scale. He 
cannot produce as plentifully or as cheaply as the large 
farm or factory equipped by steam or electricity. There 
is, perhaps, no more miserable existence than that of the 
small farmer or small industrialist, trying to hold his own 
in the field of production, against such heavy odds. It is 
a question whether the propertyless to-day are not better 
off than the small producer with his little property, which 
often prevents him from taking advantage of the best 
opportunities. His small means of production bind him to 
a certain spot, thus rendering him more dependent. While 
he enjoys the full product of his toil, — being both capitalist 
and laborer combined, — still, the declining prices due to 
large production render his income insufficient for his needs, 
even if interest and rent do not absorb the entire product. 
In spite of the thrift and industry of the small agriculturist 
and small industrialist, one fate awaits them, — bankruptcy. 
This is the inevitable result of the capitalist economic de- 
velopment. All such will finally become divorced from the 
instruments of production, and help to swell the already 
large class of proletarians. 

Not only can we read in modern tendencies the doom of 



2 o MODERN SOCIALISM. 

these two classes, but also the downfall of the small capital- 
ist. The inventions and discoveries of modern times, in- 
creasing prodigiously the productivity of labor, continually 
render former machinery useless, and compels him who 
would succeed to introduce the new methods. The capital- 
ist, who lacks the requisite means to introduce the new and 
improved machinery, finds himself unable to hold his own in 
the competitive combat, and is finally driven from the field. 
Thus, as industrial establishments are expanded, an ever 
larger capital is demanded for production. 

The same is true of agriculture. Small farms are con- 
stantly decreasing as improved methods are applied to farm- 
ing. The result of this concentration is a tremendous in- 
crease of large capitalists. While it is true that profits and 
interest tend to decline, — profits decreasing in proportion to 
a given quantity of money invested, — it does not follow that 
the income of the capitalist declines. The solution of the 
enigma being that the quantity of capital grows faster than 
the rate of profits decrease, thus constantly increasing the 
income of the capitalist. The total quantity of capital is 
rapidly augmenting. In fact, it is only because of this in- 
crease that profits fall. But the rate of interest does not 
drop in proportion to the growth of capital. It is this pro- 
cess which accelerates the downfall of the small capitalist, 
who, being unable to increase his capital proportionately, 
finds himself powerless to cope with the large competitor. 
As more capital is necessary to enable a man to live by 
exploitation, — due to the decline of profits, — the small 
capitalist must follow the lead of the small industrialist and 
agriculturist, and become himself a wage-worker at the 
hands of his expropriator. 

Thus the capitalist class becomes constantly narrowed, 
while the triumphal march of concentration goes rapidly for- 
ward. The great bulk of our population are even now de- 



THE ECONOMIC EVOLUTION. 21 

pendent upon the capitalist class. There is, also, an equal 
dependence within the capitalist class. A few men are be- 
coming veritable kings. Chauncey M. Depew is authority 
for the statement that fifty men in this country could meet 
and decide to close all business activity, and all the wheels 
of industry would have to stand still. Thus our social order, 
as has been said, is like a ladder of which the middle rounds 
are being torn away one by one. 

The small merchant is also on the same downward grade, 
and is fast being supplanted by the bazaar store. Just as 
we have seen that machine work has supplanted hand work, 
and the large capitalist the smaller one, so the department 
store has supplanted the small store. " Experience has 
shown that, under a good organization of clerks, shopmen, 
porters, and distributers, it costs much less proportionally to 
sell a large amount of goods than a small amount, and that 
the buyer of large quantities can, without sacrifice of satis- 
factory profit, afford to offer to his retail customers such 
advantages in respect to prices and range of selection as 
almost to preclude competition on the part of dealers oper- 
ating on a smaller scale. . . . The spirit of progress con- 
joined with capital, and having in view economy in distri- 
bution and the equalization of values, is therefore controlling 
and concentrating the business of retailing, in the same 
manner as the business of wholesale distribution and 
transportation, and of production by machinery, is being 
controlled and concentrated, and all to an extent never 
before known in the world's experience. And in both whole- 
sale and retail operations the reduction of profits is so 
general that it must be accepted as a permanent feature of 
the business situation, and a natural result of the new con- 
ditions that have been noted." " 

1 Recent Economic Changes, Wells, p. 109. 



22 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

Another phase of this evolution may be seen in the growth 
of the joint-stock company. The capitalist was originally an 
entrepreneur, a manager who received wages of superintend- 
ence. But the differentiation between the capitalist and 
manager was sure to come as the result of the capitalist 
development. The capitalist of to-day has abdicated his 
former position of overseer and has become a mere interest 
receiver. As competition led to waste, the massing of large 
capital became necessary, that production might be cheapened 
and rivals undersold. This has necessitated the combina- 
tion of several capitalists, and so there has arisen the joint- 
stock company. These capitalists, thus united, engage a 
manager whose business is to earn for them the largest 
dividends possible, and to secure such, wages are reduced to 
the lowest possible limit. The capitalist of to-day is, then, 
no longer the entrepreneur, working with his employees, 
but a man wholly separated from them, having nothing in 
common with them. A shareholder may be interested in a 
business at the antipodes, one of which he knows nothing or 
cares nothing, except to secure his regular dividends. Joint- 
stock capitalism is rapidly increasing everywhere, especially 
here in the United States. It was formerly thought that 
banking and insurance were the only enterprises suitable to 
joint-stock companies, but now nearly every conceivable 
industry is thus organized. Thus the capitalist class, as 
such, is seen to be superfluous, the functions previously per- 
formed by them being rendered by hired employees. The 
stock company has become a means whereby the capitalist 
can more easily acquire the property of the small producer, 
and so work his overthrow. These companies are the 
easiest to gain control of, because all that is needed is money 
sufficient to purchase the controlling interest in the stock. 
This the large capitalist can do, thus making the company 
subservient to his own ends. 



THE ECONOMIC E VOL UTION. 23 

The next stage in this economic development is the union 
of these companies into syndicates or trusts. This is the 
consummation of capitalist evolution, the final outcome of the 
evolutionary tendency in economics. This gradual develop- 
ment of competing industries into monopolies is destined, at 
last, to bring in the Co-operative Commonwealth. Already 
the process of concentration has so accelerated, that Social- 
ists firmly believe that its unification is near. 

The formation of the trust and syndicate, which has resulted 
from the concentration of business into fewer hands, is one 
of the most significant phenomena of the present day. Its 
appearance in the social realm foreshadows the doom of the 
competitive system. That the trust and monopoly evidences 
a current set in the direction of Socialism, none will deny. 
The growing solidarity of labor, and the incompetency of 
the managers of industry to keep production continuous, 
and to preserve command of the industrial army, are also 
proofs that Socialism is the final outcome. 

One who understands the causes which have led to the 
substitution of combination for competition, will realize the 
impossibility of our ever returning to the latter. The choice 
must be made between monopoly under private management 
and monopoly under public control ; for monopoly, in some 
form, it must be. The efficiency of capital in large masses, 
and the economies of consolidation, as well as the control 
over the market resulting from monopoly, are valid reasons 
for the development of the principle of combination. The 
efficiency of capital in large masses constitutes the law of 
"industrial gravitation." 1 The fact that power is most 
economically utilized when applied on the largest possible 
scale, is rapidly concentrating all business into the hands of 
a few great corporations and trusts. The process of exter- 

1 The advantage of production on a large scale is well set forth in 
Recent Economic Changes, by D. A. Wells. 



24 



MODERN SOCIALISM. 



mination has been going on for years, and the small indi- 
vidual enterprises, so necessary to a free competitive system, 
have gradually been driven to the wall. To-day there is but 
little opportunity for individual initiative in business, unless 
backed by large capital. As the corporation is more powerful 
than the individual, so the syndicate is more powerful than 
the corporation. Combination in one industry has compelled 
combination in all. Field after field has been closed to 
competition, thus rapidly reducing the once independent 
middle class to the level of proletarians. The inevitable 
result of present tendencies will be to divide society into two 
classes, — a few families of prodigious wealth on the one hand, 
and a vast population of dependent laborers on the other. 
As I have said, we cannot return to the old days of com- 
petition and small things, for such would involve a reversal 
of all progress. Associated capital and machinery are es- 
sential to effective and economical production. But few men 
can furnish the requisite means for carrying on production 
on a large scale. Thus is necessitated the corporation or 
the joint-stock company, as the only way in which the 
requirements of the present age can be met. The tendency 
of these corporations to crystallize into the syndicate or trust 
constitutes, as I have said, the final stage of the economic 
development. The trust and syndicate, however, have come, 
and come to stay. The question, then, is whether the public 
shall own the monopolies, or the monopolies shall own the 
public. If people do not wish plutocratic rule in industry, 
they must themselves own the industries, for monopoly, 
either private or public, is inevitable. In economic evolu- 
tions there is no retrogression. Industry has gradually 
and successively passed from the period of handicraft to 
that of small manufactories, thence into modern indus- 
trialism, and is now taking on the form of monopoly. 
But this monopolistic stage which we have entered is not 



THE ECONOMIC E VOL UTION 25 

the end. As individuals have combined into corporations, 
and corporations into trusts, so the trusts will combine 
into a Co-operative Commonwealth. This is the only logi- 
cal conclusion. It is only in universal combination that 
a complete consummation can be attained. Trusts must 
combine in a general trust, — the nation. Socialism is the 
logical and natural end of this industrial tendency. Not 
only is it logical and natural, but inevitable, if we would 
escape plutocracy. It presents the only solution which is 
democratic in character, — the only alternative from personal 
or class rule. This tendency to concentration has but to 
go on to bring us to Socialism. Centralize all business in a 
trust, and then place a representative of the people in com- 
mand, or make those already in control responsible to the 
people instead of to a syndicate of capitalists, and Socialism 
is attained. That this end will be realized is evident from 
the fact that centralization in business is more and more 
necessary to order and economy. 

Not only the means of production, but the wealth of the 
country in general, are concentrating into the hands of a few 
men. Let me give a few quotations from eminent authorities 
bearing upon this point. 

Says Edward Bellamy : — " At the present time the prop- 
erty of 100,000 men in the United States aggregates more 
than the total possessions of the rest of the people. Ten 
thousand people own nearly the whole of New York City 
with its 2,000,000 population. The entire bonded debt of 
the United States is held by 71,000 persons only, and over 
60 per cent, of it is in the hands of 23,000 persons. " * 

Says Professor Parsons : — " In 1840 there was one mil- 
lionaire to two million people ; now there is one to each 
15,000. In 1840 it took one-fourth of the people to buy 
half the wealth of the nation ; now it takes less than one- 
1 Principles and Purposes of Nationalism. 



26 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

twentieth of one per cent., or 30,000, to buy out the re- 
maining sixty-five millions of people — a congestion of 
wealth 700 times as intense as that of 1840." 

" We are moving with tremendous rapidity toward the 
danger line. Persia perished when one per cent, of the 
people owned all the land ; Egypt went down when two 
per cent, owned 97-iooths of all the wealth ; Babylon died 
when two per cent, owned all the wealth, and Rome expired 
when 1,800 men possessed the known world. The congestion 
of wealth is indeed a fatal disease— the heart failure of nations. 
In the United States to-day, one per cent, own more than 
three-fifths of all the wealth of the nation ; 4,000 millionaires 
and multi-millionaires own more than one-fifth, and the 
billionaire is expected before the end of the century. If 
the present rate of concentration continues, in 1920 one 
per cent, of our people will own 95-iooths of all our 
wealth." 1 

Mr. George K. Holmes, of the U. S. Census Office, esti- 
mates the distribution of wealth as follows : — " Twenty per 
cent, of the wealth of the United States is owned by three 
one-hundredths of one per cent, of the population ; seventy- 
one per cent, is owned by nine per cent, of the families, and 
twenty-nine per cent, of the wealth is all that falls to ninety- 
one per cent, of the population." 

Mr. Thomas G. Shearman, in an article in The Forum, 
November, 1889, says : — " The average annual income of the 
richest hundred Americans cannot be less than $1,200,000, 
and probably exceeds $1,500,000. ... It may safely be as- 
sumed that 200,000 persons control 70 per cent, of the na- 
tional wealth." Rev. Josiah Strong says, in explication of 
Mr. Shearman's statement, that " in the distribution of the 
national wealth one man in three hundred receives $70 out 

1 Philosophy of Mutualism , Parsons, p. 8. 



THE E CON O MIC E VOL UTION. 2 J 



of every $100, and 299 men receive $30, which if averaged 
would give them about ten cents each." x 

The total number of millionaires in New York City, ac- 
cording to the Sun list of 1855, was 28, while the total num- 
ber, according to the Tribune list of 1892, was 1103. 

These facts evidence the rapid concentration of wealth. 
Is there danger in this congestion ? Daniel Webster said, 
V The freest government cannot long endure where the tend- 
ency of the law is to create a rapid accumulation of prop- 
erty in the hands of a few." 

The cause of this concentration is largely due to monopoly. 
John R. Commons says that a conservative estimate traces 
over three-fourths of the great fortunes of the country to a 
connection of some kind with economic surplus. 2 That is, a 
surplus individually unearned by him who receives it. There 
never before was known within so short a time such an ex- 
propriation as this. 

Socialism, however, proclaims that the principle of com- 
bination is sound and ought to be extended to the whole 
social order. If production and distribution on a large scale 
are more economic, they ought to survive. But, while private 
monopoly is an enemy to industrial freedom and the public 
good, public monopoly is a blessing. " The economic de- 
pendence of the laboring man upon the monopolist of the 
implements of work and sources of life, forms the basis of 
every kind of servitude, of social misery, of spiritual degrada- 
tion and political dependence." 3 Such are the evils of mo- 
nopoly in private hands. The only remedy is to substitute 
public for private control of industry. Socialize monopolies, 
and the evils which arise from private ownership will dis- 
appear, leaving only the benefits that result from co-operation. 

1 The New Era, Strong, p. 152. 

2 Distribution of Wealth, ch. vi. 

3 American Industrial Association. 



2 8 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

If the principle of combination is sound, the only safety for 
society is in its adoption. Industrial and economic freedom, 
which is the basis of all freedom, can only thus be secured. 
This emancipation, however, is sure of attainment, for com- 
petition when it is finished bringeth forth monopoly, and 
monopoly when it is finished bringeth forth the Co-opera- 
tive Commonwealth. 

Any business organized as a trust is eminently ripe for 
appropriation by society. It is useless to say that such an 
enterprise cannot be managed by the State, when it is being 
managed by a band of capitalists. The board of directors — 
who do not usually own the capital invested — can as readily 
be made responsible to the nation as to the shareholders. 
There need be no inconvenience experienced in making the 
transition, for if the State deem it expedient, the directors in 
charge at the time can be retained. What difference does 
it make whether there are 7,000 or 70,000,000 shareholders ? 
Will not the managers be just as faithful when all the people 
are shareholders, as they are now when only a few are such ? 
Cannot all the people find managers to produce wealth for 
them, as well as the few shareholders to-day ? Increasing 
the number of the firm really makes no difference. If man- 
agers can be secured to conduct business in the present state 
of competition, with all the risks of being ruined by the in- 
trigues of rivals, surely there will be no difficulty in finding 
competent directors when these baneful conditions no longer 
exist. The practicability of Socialism is demonstrated by 
the methods of modern industry. 



ADVANTAGES OF SOCIALISM, 29 



CHAPTER IV. 

ADVANTAGES OF SOCIALISM IN THE PRODUCTION, DISTRI- 
BUTION, AND CONSUMPTION OF WEALTH. 

One of the greatest advantages urged in behalf of Social- 
ism is, that under its regime all the forces will work for a 
large product, whereas, at present, certain forces strive to 
diminish production. This is perfectly natural when pro- 
duction is carried on for exchange, for an abundance of 
commodities means small values. Production, therefore, is 
often checked, lest diminished value result from increase of 
quantity. If the supply were sufficient to satisfy all demands, 
such commodities would cease to have value. Cotton is an 
illustration of this divergence between class interest and the 
general interest, Society, of course, wants a large supply of 
this useful product, but the planters of the South have for 
some time been trying to devise means to diminish the crop. 
After quoting several articles headed, " Cotton Planters," 
" Southern Men Advocating a Reduction of the Acreage," 
and " Trying to Wrestle with the Problem of Over-Produc- 
tion, " Professor Ely says : — " How strange a thing this bounty 
of nature ! We wish nature to be generous but not too 
generous. If nature comes to us with smiling face and out- 
stretched arms, and pours into our laps her gifts without 
stint, she impoverishes us, and we hardly know whether to 
dread the more an excess of niggardliness or an excess of 
generosity on her part. So full of contradictions is our 
present economic order, that men must go without coats 
because too much clothing has been produced, and children 
must go hungry because the production of grain has been over- 



3<> 



MODERN SOCIALISM. 



abundant. As the Socialists have said, with some measure 
of truth, i In civilization poverty is born of plenty/" ■ 

The result of the present wage and profit system is to ar- 
tificially limit consumption, and so destroy the purchasing 
power of the masses. This must be the result of production 
carried on for sale rather than for the satisfaction of our 
wants. Social riches mean abundance, but individual 
interests are opposed to abundance, and so combinations 
are formed to restrict and limit production. When produc- 
tion is carried on for consumption and not for exchange, an 
abundance is always hailed with joy, and the possessor is 
glad to distribute of his superfluities for the need of all. 
But when production is carried on for exchange, it is values 
that are wanted, and value depends upon limited supply. 
Thus, under our present system, we cannot hope for har- 
monious relations in economic life. The interests of men 
are antagonistic. To destroy profit-mongering would be to 
produce for our needs, which would mean increased consump- 
tion, and so increased production, for the latter can only be 
sustained by the former. Says Mr. Gronlund : — " This is 
what Nationalism [Socialism] means and what it proposes 
doing : to enable society — the nation, state or municipality, 
each in its proper sphere — to set all willing hands and brains 
to work, by furnishing them the necessary capital ; then we 
shall have, not the artificial harmony between production and 
consumption which the trusts create, but perfect natural 
harmony between the capacity for producing and the ca- 
pacity for consuming, both of which are even now illimitable. 
No pampering, no poverty any longer, but the whole country 
vibrating with the music of joyful labor." 2 

In place of the present planless system of production 
Socialism proposes a systematized organization of industry. 

1 Socialism and Social Reform, p. 134. 

2 Our Destmy, Gronlund, p. 27. 



ADVANTAGE OF SOCIALISM. 31 

At the present time a farmer produces for a capricious mar- 
ket. He decides to plant his farm to potatoes ; as they have 
been unusually high for several years he thinks it a good 
crop to raise. Of course, he is ignorant of the intentions of 
his rivals, but they, too, have been watching the market and 
have been induced by the high prices to plant potatoes. The 
result is over-production, and prices fall. Well, our first 
farmer decides to raise barley the next year, as that has been 
bringing a good price ; but thousands have come to the same 
conclusion, and disaster results. Not only does the individ- 
ual suffer, but society also loses, because economic energy 
has not been used to the best advantage. " The producers 
play at hide and seek with supply and demand," and all is 
uncertain and chaotic. In contrast with this, the Socialist 
proposes a systematic and orderly production. He would 
ascertain the demand and arrange the forces to meet it. He 
would know quite accurately how many bushels of potatoes 
would be needed, and the number of acres necessary to supply 
the demand. For when we deal with productive forces on a 
large scale, the element of chance is almost entirely elimi- 
nated. The potato crop might fail in one section but be 
abundant in another, so a general average would be main- 
tained. The larger the scale and the more completely 
organized the production, the less the risk. As the result 
of this complete organization of industry, commercial crises 
would disappear. This of itself is an important advantage. 
Again, let me illustrate other advantages of social co-opera* 
tion. Suppose there are one hundred plumbers, together 
employing six hundred men. The one hundred bosses 
spend much time seeking jobs, and trying to beat each other. 
When in their offices, they have a large amount of neces- 
sary work to do in the way of writing letters, preparing 
estimates, making out bills, etc., all of which is important, 
but still its productivity is insignificant. These one hundred 



32 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

employers have as many shops, and the cost and equipment 
is sufficient to build a large and magnificent co-operative 
factory, where all would find steady employment, and in 
which the cost of machinery would be greatly reduced and 
improved methods might be introduced. 

The same is true of the carpenters, masons, etc. In each 
of these fields, the employers are often in financial embarrass- 
ment, and the press of competition is so great that most of 
them succumb in a time of crisis. On the other hand, the 
employees are nothing but wage-slaves, absolutely dependent, 
who, as the result of the planless production, frequently find 
themselves out of work and reduced to degradation. Co- 
operation would introduce concert in place of antagonism, 
and so eliminate all the evils resulting from our haphazard 
method. 

It is only by co-operation that the benefits of machinery 
and invention can be secured to the people. Socialism 
would surely promote a full utilization of all industrial dis- 
coveries. There would exist no opposition, as now, on the 
part of laborers to the introduction of new machinery, for 
all would desire to produce with as little expenditure of labor 
pow T er as possible. Neither would there be the opposition 
of capitalists, who to-day often disparage new methods be- 
cause they involve heavy expenditures. All this would dis- 
appear under Socialism, for if all were equally benefited by 
the improved processes, there would be no one to oppose the 
introduction of new methods. 

The Socialist argues that the laborer does not receive the 
full and just product of his toil. For example, take the 
manufacturer of agricultural implements. Suppose one hun- 
dred workmen are employed in a factory at an average of 
%\o per week. After the wages have been paid from the 
product produced by these men, a large sum remains, a small 
part of which goes to replace the capital used up in the pro- 



ADVANTAGES OF SOCIALISM ^ 

cess of production. The superintendent, say, receives $30 
per week, and to be generous we will award the boss $60 
per week. After capital, superintendent, and boss have been 
rewarded and labor paid, there still remains the sum of $50- 
000 which the boss takes to himself. Now it is asked, Who 
produced the value represented by the $50,000, which the 
manufacturer appropriates? Socialists say, it was produced 
bv labor, and, injustice, labor should receive it. 1 The ques- 
tion is often raised here as to the quality of risk. It is said 
that the profit should be accorded to the capitalist to insure 
him against possible loss ; that although the annual profits 
may amount to $50,000, there are cases where no profits are 
made, and often a severe loss is sustained. The $50,000, it 
is argued, should be considered a premium for the risk the 
capitalist takes in the investment of his money, and to insure 
him against possible loss in the future. The Socialist says 
in reply that this would seem to be correct if only one manu- 
facturer is considered, but in the entire branch of industry 
the aggregate profit is immeasurably more than the aggregate 
loss. But even if under the present capitalist system, the indi- 
vidual manufacturer should claim a percentage of the profits 
as a guard against possible loss, such a claim could only be 
allowed while this system prevails. Under Socialism the 
element of risk would be eliminated, and bankruptcies ren- 
dered an impossibility. Another advantage, then, of social 
production is, that all profits would accrue to labor, the right- 
ful owner. 

To show precisely what Socialists propose, I will condense 
an illustration given by Alexander Jonas. 2 There were en- 
gaged in the manufacture of agricultural implements, accord- 
ing to the census returns of 1880, 1,943 establishments. The 

1 These estimates are given by Alexander Jonas in a pamphlet, Re- 
porter and Socialist. 

2 See pamphlet, Reporter and Socialist. 



34 



MODERN SOCIALISM. 



number of persons employed was 38,313 men, 73 women and 
1,194 children. The wages paid during the year amounted 
to $15,359,160, and the cost of raw material is given at $31,- 
531,170, while the aggregate value of the product is figured at 
$68,640,486. Each laborer, then, received $7,88.2^ in wages, 
while the bosses, after paying the workmen, and after deduct- 
ing the cost of the material and interest for capital invested 
at 5 per cent., put $18,640,706 in their pockets. In other 
words, out of the labor of every worker, whose average was 
$388.25, they made $470. 

Now in these days of concentration, it would be easy for 
us to conceive of one manufacturer becoming the possessor 
of all the other establishments. Some he would purchase, 
others he would crush out by competition, until at length he 
would be sole producer of agricultural implements. This, 
of course, would give him a great advantage over the 1,943 
manufacturers now existing, for he would then have no com- 
petitors, and could produce in accordance with the demand. 
Over-production could not occur, as it does now when each 
of the 1,943 manufacturers is producing independently and 
in entire ignorance of the requirement. He could also pro- 
duce much cheaper. Many advantages will suggest them- 
selves, like a complete division of labor, placing of factories 
near raw materials, reducing expense in advertising, etc # 
The result would be, that with the same capital and labor 
employed, as with the 1,943 manufactures, he could greatly 
increase the annual product. It would probably be no ex- 
aggeration, taking into consideration all the extraordinary 
advantages of social production, to place the value at one 
hundred millions, instead of sixty-nine millions, as it is to- 
day. This would necessitate raising the cost of materials 
from the $31,500,000 to $40,000,000. The status of this 
monopolized industry, according to Mr. Jonas, would be as 
follows : 



ADVANTAGES OF SOCIALISM 35 

Number of establishments 10 

Number of workers 39>S^° 

Capital invested $62,000,000.00 

Cost of material 40,000,000.00 

Aggregate amount of wages 15,359,610.00 

Value of product 100,000,000.00 

Average annual wage 388.25 

Profit of boss 41,440,390.00 

This monopolized industry, of course, consists of superin- 
tendents, engineer, inventor, foremen, clerks, laborers, all the 
hands and apparatus necessary for the running of the con- 
cern. Now, to socialize this industry, all that is necessary is 
to take away the boss or capitalist, who, as mere capitalist, is 
in no way concerned in the carrying on of the business. To 
remove the capitalist would make no change, if he be mere 
capitalist, and does not combine that with the office of mana- 
ger. The whole organic composition remains in all its details. 
Where, then, is the difference ? Only in this, — instead of the 
forty-one millions of dollars of profit going, as heretofore, 
into the pocket of one man, we should have the forty-one 
millions going into the pockets of the laborers. Thus, each 
laborer in addition to his regular wage of $388.25 would 
receive $1,047, — n ^ s portion of the forty-one millions, — mak- 
ing his annual income $1,435. 

Socialism means that all the branches of industry shall be 
thus organized. The eliminating of the capitalist and land- 
owner by socializing production, would secure to the prole- 
tarians the full product of their toil ; that which now goes to 
these men in the form of profits, would then accrue to the 
laborer. 

To realize Socialism, says Mr. Gronlund : — " Extend in 
your mind division of labor and all the other factors that in- 
crease the productivity of labor; apply them to all human 



36 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

pursuits as far as can be ; imagine manufactures, transporta- 
tion and commerce conducted on the grandest possible scale 
and in the most effective manner ; then add to division of 
labor its complement, concert ; introduce adjustment every- 
where where now there is anarchy ; add that central regula- 
tive system which Spencer says distinguishes all highly 
organized structures, and which supplies ' each organ with 
blood in proportion to the work it does,' and — behold the 
Co-operative Commonwealth ! " x Such advantages in behalf 
of a social system should not be lightly considered. 

Other advantages of Socialism maybe seen by considering 
the method by which production is largely carried on, — that 
of the joint-stock company. A number of men meet and 
form themselves into such a company, and elect officers. 
They propose to engage in the manufacture, say, of cotton 
cloth. They themselves know nothing about the business, 
nor is it necessary. They hire a manager and place their 
money at his disposal. He constructs the buildings, equips 
them with machinery, goes into the open market and pur- 
chases the needful raw materials and labor force, and the 
production of cotton cloth goes forward. The capitalists, 
notice, do nothing themselves but simply watch the process. 
As soon as the product is ready for the market the manager 
transports it to the place of exchange and brings back to the 
office of the company the much coveted gold. The first 
thing now done by our moneyed men is to deduct from this 
total the cost of raw materials and the wear and tear of 
machinery. The balance is divided into nearly two equal 
parts. One portion is given to labor, the other they take 
themselves. Now this portion which goes to the stock- 
holders is usually called surplus, or profits, and it is for the 
sake of this that production is carried on. What have these 
stockholders done to earn this portion ? Nothing, says 
1 Co-operative Commonwealth, p. 105. 



ADVANTAGES OF SOCIALISM. 



Socialism. Labor has created the whole value. The pro- 
cess had gone on independently of the stockholders, they 
having contributed no part to the industrial process, but 
now they step in, and receive as remuneration for having 
looked on one-half of the total net product. It is this 
surplus — the difference between what labor creates and what 
it receives — that Socialism calls fleecings. This, however, 
as no reflection upon persons, but as a condemnation of the 
system that enables some to appropriate the labor of others, 
and to say to them, " If you will work five hours for me 
gratuitously, you may have the privilege of working five 
hours for yourself." 

To be sure, the capitalist, — and by capitalist is meant 
the man who receives an income without work (true, many 
capitalists work, but their remuneration for that has nothing 
to do with their income as capitalists), — may have to divide 
his surplus with the land-owner and banker, provided he 
does not own all the means necessary. But the fact remains 
that the workers receive but about one-half of the wealth 
they produce. We have wages on the one hand, and in- 
terest, profit and rent on the other. 1 

In the United States, according to the census reports of 1890, 
there were 322,638 industrial establishments. The number 
of employees was 4,476,884; total wages paid $2,171,750,183 ; 
total value of product amounted to $9,372,000,000; the aver- 
age wage per capita was $485, and the percentage of net 
product going to wages was 53.8 per cent. It follows from 
this that 46.2 per cent, of the net product is surplus, or fleec- 
ings. In other words, when the laborer receives for his year's 
work $485, he receives but 53.8 percent, of the values he has 
created. The other 46.2 per cent., or $415, has been appro- 
priated by his employer. Thus, while he actually creates 

1 For full exposition of the profit system, see Gronlund's Co-operative 
Commonwealth, ch. i. 



38 MODERN SOCIALISM, 

$900 worth of products, he receives in payment for his ser- 
vices but $485. This $900, remember, is not the gross value 
of the products on leaving the factories, but the value given to 
them in the factories by labor. Thus the artisan's wage of 
$485 is but 53.8 per cent, of the value his hands have 
added to the raw materials in forming them into finished 
products. The surplus, 46.2 per cent., goes to another class, 
who, although they have performed no work, are enabled to 
appropriate, under the title of interest, rent and profits, the 
product of others' labor. Socialism would save to the laborer 
this surplus, and add it directly to his income. Under the 
present system the owners of the means of production pocket 
this surplus (the difference between the price of labor and 
the price of labor's products), but under Socialism the means 
of production will belong to labor socially organized, con- 
sequently that which now goes into the pockets of the capi- 
talist would be transferred to the laborers. 

If the question be asked, Should not capital have its 
share of the product ? The answer given by the Socialist is, 
Yes, under the present system. To-day men borrow money 
that they may use it to make money, and interest is nothing 
but a part of the surplus — a fair division of the spoils — and 
so perfectly proper. It is not only legitimate under our 
present system, but absolutely necessary, for in the competi- 
tive struggle, to sacrifice any part of the surplus might mean 
failure. But this only condemns the system that makes 
such injustice necessary. When the people are their ov/n 
capitalists, the absorption of the surplus labor will cease. 
When men no longer borrow capital for the purpose of 
using it to create more capital, interest will be a thing of 
the past. When the people own collectively the instruments 
of production, they will be no longer exploited. 

Another strong argument in behalf of Socialism is its 
strength as a scheme of distribution. The common owner- 



ADVANTAGES OF SOCIALISM. 39 

ship of the instruments of production, would mean the 
common distribution of the products of production. The 
advantages of such a system are inestimable. Socialism 
proposes to substitute an orderly method of distribution in 
place of the one based on private enterprise. It would avoid 
the two extremes of plutocracy and pauperism and aim to 
the fullest extent, as already said, at the satisfaction of human 
wants. 

Under Socialism, most of the machinery for the exchange 
of commodities, would cease to be. Trade and commerce, 
as they exist to-day, would be a thing of the past. Com- 
modities would be gathered into large central stores, and 
distributed to each in accordance with his income. It is 
estimated that one-eightieth of the population instead of 
one-eighth, as now, would suffice to bring the commodities 
from the producer to the consumer. 1 This would be a sav- 
ing, in the distributive system alone, of nine-tenths of the 
economic force now expended. 

Says Professor Ely : — " Socialistic distribution has also 
strength when it is viewed from the standpoint of other classes 
than the wage-earners. The employer, even if he may receive 
a smaller share, is free from the harrowing cares and anxieties 
which now beset him. The fear that he may lose his entire 
share in the wealth distributed, a fear often realized as large 
producers annihilate small producers, ceases to torment him, 
for Socialism, as we have already seen, provides an income 
for all members of society. " 2 

Capitalists should not be unfavorable to Socialism. The 
mental suffering which they often endure is beyond popular 
conception. Remember that nine-tenths of all business 
men fail. Is it supposed that there is no mental suffering 
connected with such a condition? Think of the 14,000 

1 Looking Backward, Bellamy, p. 228. 

2 Socialism and Social Reform, Ely, p. 141. 



4 o MODERN SOCIALISM. 

failures annually! And even where business men have been 
able to weather the storm ; think of the anxiety, the sleepless 
nights, loss of appetite, that frequently attends many we are 
inclined to call prosperous. Few people have an idea of the 
actual wear and tear of mind and body resulting from 
capitalist competition. Is the possession of a vast fortune 
really worth the misery experienced in the acquisition ? 
After it has been attained, there is a constant fear, not only 
for personal safety, but of losing social caste. Many rich 
men suffer as much through this fear of being reduced to 
want as do the laborers themselves. And well they may, 
for one turn of the wheel of fortune may place them among 
the class they so much despise. 

Professor Ely again says in this connection: — "When dis- 
tribution is viewed from the standpoint of those engaged in 
the learned professions, Socialism is not without its attrac- 
tive features. Those professions are now overcrowded, 
largely because many, better adapted to mechanical pursuits, 
endeavor to push up into the learned professions to escape 
unpleasant conditions attending those occupations for 
which they are naturally adapted. This might be expected 
to cease, if agriculture and mechanical pursuits could be 
rendered more agreeable ; and the anxiety of professional 
men for themselves, and often their still greater anxiety for 
their children, would no longer perplex them by day and 
disturb their rest at night." 

Speaking in a general way of the advantages of the Co- 
operative Commonwealth, I might mention that the small 
shopkeeper, commission merchant, and peddlers would be 
eliminated. That this would be advantageous is evident 
from the failure of competition to always reduce prices. 
Generally speaking, the small store must charge exorbitant 
prices, for the limited trade necessitates such in order that 
the shopkeeper may live. The larger the business the 



ADVANTAGES OF SOCIALISM. 41 

smaller need be the profits of any one commodity. If trade 
is limited and increased profits are impossible, the extra 
profit is apt to be made up by short weights and depreciated 
goods. The adulterations to-day are almost beyond com- 
prehension. In place of these small stores we should have 
the great bazaars, where every possible article of reliable 
quality and uniform prices could be found. What an ad- 
vantage this would be to purchasers. Think of the women 
who to-day tramp the streets of our cities, going from store 
to store in hopes of finding something more suitable in 
quality or price, and finally, all but dead with fatigue, per- 
haps, ending where they began. How much easier to shop 
when each ward or district store contains samples of all the 
nation's products, the prices of which are uniform, and the 
quality guaranteed by the government stamp. These dis- 
trict stores need be but little more than sample rooms, all 
large commodities being kept in stock at the central ware- 
house, from which orders would be filled, thus saving use- 
less handling of goods. 

Another great gain would be in the abolition of all specu- 
lation. The stock and other exchanges, which contribute 
nothing to the world's goods, would be relegated to the past. 
Trade, instead of buying and selling with a view to profit, 
would be transformed into the distribution of products to 
consumers, while foreign exchange would be real commerce, 
— the exchange of products which we do not need, for those 
we do need. 

The new order would also wonderfully affect transpor- 
tation. Instead of the hundreds of trucks necessitated by 
individual enterprise, fully nine-tenths of which are an abso- 
lute waste of animal and human power, we should have com- 
paratively few, doing business for but one concern. What a 
change this alone would make in our great cities ! 

We have already noted some of the advantages of co-oper- 



42 MODERN SOCIALISM, 



ative farming. Before concluding this chapter, I wish to 
call attention to the vast economies of organized agriculture. 
The "Bonanza" farms of the West have demonstrated the 
advantages of farming on a large scale. In place of a hun- 
dred barns, yards, stables and houses,' one of each would 
suffice. Think of the enormous saving here. Then, what 
a saving in horses and wagons, fences and small tools, etc., 
and of labor, a large proportion of which would be liberated 
and rendered available for other pursuits ! The economy of 
agricultural production on a large scale is prodigious. Says 
Professor Fawcett : — " It has been calculated that a steam- 
cultivator would plough a square field of ten acres in half 
the time occupied in ploughing two fields of five acres each, 
and with two-thirds the expense." 

Says Mr. Wells : — " The following statements have re- 
cently been made in California, on what is claimed to be 
good authority (Overland Monthly), of the comparative cost 
of growing wheat in that state on ranches or farms of differ- 
ent sizes. On ranches of 1,000 acres, the average cost is 
reported at 92^ cents per 100 pounds; on 2,000 acres, 85 
cents; on 6,000 acres, 75 cents; on 15,000 acres, 60 cents; 
on 30,000 acres, 50 cents ; and on 50,000 acres, 40 cents." 

" That the only possible future for agriculture, prosecuted 
for the sake of producing the great staples of food, is to be 
found in large farms, worked with ample capital, especially 
in the form of machinery, and with labor organized some- 
what after the factory system, is coming to be the opinion of 
many of the best authorities, both in the United States and 
Europe." 

" Machinery is already largely employed in connection 
with the drying and canning of fruit and vegetables, and in 
the manufacture of wine. In the sowing, harvesting, trans- 
porting, and milling of wheat, its utilization has reached a 
point where further improvement would seem to be almost 



ADVANTAGES OF SOCIALISM. 43 

impossible . . . The business of fattening cattle by the so- 
called ' factory system/ on a most extensive scale, has also 
been most successfully introduced in the Northwestern and 
trans-Mississippi States and Territories, and that great firms 
have at present thousands of cattle gathered under one 
roof, and undergoing the operation of fattening by the most 
continuous, effective, and economic processes. The results 
show that one laborer can take care of two hundred steers 
undergoing the process of grain-feeding for the shambles, in 
a systematic, thorough manner, with the expenditure of much 
less time and labor per day than the ordinary farmer spends 
in tending fifteen or twenty head of fattening steers under 
the disadvantages common upon the ordinary farms." 

" How great a revolution in the business of agriculture is 
yet to be effected by the cultivation of land in large tracts, 
with the full use of machinery and under the factory system, 
is matter for the future to reveal ; but it cannot be doubted 
that the shiftless, wasteful methods of agriculture, now in 
practice over enormous areas of the earth's surface, are al- 
together too barbarous to be much longer tolerated." l 

In the " Notes and Comments" of the North American 
Review for October there is an article by Geo. E. Walsh, 
entitled "An Electric Farm." He says : " Electric plows 
have been patented in Vienna, and electric hayrakes, reap- 
ers, carts and threshing machines have been placed upon 
exhibition in this country, and their utility tested favorably. 
Experimental farms have been established where nearly all 
the work has been performed by means of this powerful 
agent — fields plowed, harrowed, fertilized and rolled, seeds 
planted and covered with soil, weeds killed and crops har- 
vested and threshed." The author then refers to some of 
the many experiments that have been made to ascertain the 
effect of electrcity upon plant life. It has been ascertained 

1 Recent Economic Changes •, by Wells, pp. 99, 461, 462. 



44 MODERN SOCIALISM. 



that fifty per cent, more grain can be procured from a tract of 
ground planted with a small network of wires, than from a 
similar plot of soil not thus stimulated. 

All this shows the advantage of systematic agriculture. 
When the electric power comes into general use on the large 
farms, it will be still more difficult for the small farmer to 
continue his vocation. The cost of an electric plant and the 
reduced price of products produced by modern methods, 
will drive him into bankruptcy. The only salvation for the 
small farmer and agricultural laborer is in the socialization 
of the electric button. The advantages of socialized agri- 
culture are indisputable. May the day hasten when these 
benefits shall be realized. 

We have now considered a few of the advantages of Social- 
ism in the production, distribution, and consumption of 
wealth. They alone are sufficient to evidence the value and 
worth of the new social order. 



THE POSTULATES OE SOCIALISM. 



45 



CHAPTER V. 

THE POSTULATES OF SOCIALISM IN REGARD TO MONEY, 
VALUE, AND WAGES. 

These three factors of social economy are so closely con- 
nected that the treatment of one involves the consideration 
of all. 

Under Socialism money — by which I mean gold, silver 
and their representatives — would become superfluous. To be 
sure, money may be used for some time after Socialism is 
established, and if minor businesses are left in private hands, 
it may be, for the sake of convenience, continued indefinitely. 
With the abolition of private capital, the part which it would 
play would be very meagre. The love of money, which is 
the root of all evil, would entirely disappear. Such is im- 
possible under our present system, for money is the very 
quintessence of capitalism. But it may be asked, How would 
exchanges be carried on under Socialism ? We answer, By 
account, facilitated by labor checks. These checks, tickets 
or certificates of labor would readily take the place of money. 
Of course, for settling balances with foreign nations, gold 
and silver would be used, as bullion, the same as now. 

Here let me say in passing, that this is not greenbackism, as 
some may suppose. The greenbacker, to be sure, wishes to 
abolish the precious metals as money, but he also wishes to 
retain the present industrial system, which renders his scheme 
impracticable. His notes, issued by the government, are 
pure fiat, there being nothing behind them but the credit of 
the nation. It says, You may go anywhere within the United 
States and exchange this note for one dollar's worth of goods. 



46 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

This is absurd, since the goods do not belong to the govern- 
ment but to private individuals. Under Socialism, where 
the goods belong to the State, there is something behind the 
promise or note with which to redeem it. When the State is 
sole producer, then it can issue its notes against its wares, 
and say, Here, take this note which I give in return for so 
much labor performed and with it you can purchase from any 
of my warehouses a like amount of labor congealed in any 
commodity you desire. The Socialist programme, you will 
observe, is strictly logical. For every day's work performed 
a labor check is issued against the wealth created, which 
enables the laborer to exchange the check for the product he 
has created, or for any other commodity containing an equal 
amount of labor time. He thus receives full compensation 
for all the wealth he creates, — the full product of his toil. 

The remuneration of labor in the form of a money wage 
obscures the fact that the laborer does not receive the full 
product of his labor. It is by this means that labor is ex- 
ploited. Labor when treated as a commodity has two 
values, — value in exchange, or what it will sell for, and 
value in use, or what the employer gets for labor's product. 
Labor employed in production from raw materials adds to 
those materials an increased value. It is not, however, to 
the materials that the new value is due, but to labor which 
has given to the materials a new form. The manufacturer 
makes nothing on raw materials, but only on the labor 
which he buys and sells. The laborer is obliged to sell his 
labor for its market value. He cannot secure the use-value 
of his labor, for the reason that the means of production 
are monopolized by the employer. The laborer, then, does 
not receive the full value of his toil, nor can he, under the 
wage system. This exploitation is part and parcel of mod- 
ern production, and money wages are the means by which 
labor is exploited. Morally this is wrong, however necessary 



THE POSTULA TES OF SOCIALISM. 47 

it may be to the present order. It is not right for one man 
to thrive at the expense of another. If the laborer were 
paid in the commodities which he produces, he would at 
once see that he did not receive the full value of his labor. 
The wage system is admirably adapted to blind the laborers 
to the manner in which they are wronged. Their money 
wage appears to be equal to the value of their services, 
when in reality their real value is equal to the money wage 
plus that which the employer receives for their services. 
Here is the real secret of exploitation, which necessarily 
will continue as long as the wage system remains. 

Again, it may be suggested that the function of money is 
not only as a medium of exchange but also as a measure of 
value. This function, however, it has always poorly per- 
formed. In fact, gold and silver have fluctuated nearly as 
much as the value of the commodities they have attempted 
to measure. 

To understand how under Socialism this secondary function 
of money would be performed, we shall need to understand 
what is meant by value. This has been so well stated by 
Mr. Gronlund in his Co-operative Commonwealth that I can 
do no better than use his words : — " By value we mean 
value in exchange ; we do not mean value in use, nor utility, 
nor . . . worth. The worth or utility of shoes is their capac- 
ity to protect the feet ; their value is what they will fetch 
in the open market. Their value is their relation to other 
wares, in some way or other ; is another name for equiv- 
alence. But relation in what way ? Not relation of worths. 
Worth, or utility, is undoubtedly presupposed, but it does 
not determine the value." A man can buy a hat for two 
dollars or a pair of shoes for the same, and both are useful 
to him ; but their usefulness is not the reason he pays two 
dollars for them. He can buy a loaf of bread for five cents, 
which is infinitely of more worth to him than either, if he 



48 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

has had nothing to eat for several days. It is evidently 
worth more to him than to a man who has just partaken of 
a hearty meal, but the latter can buy it just as cheaply as 
the former. Although value is a relation between useful 
things it is not a relation of worths. 1 

A farmer goes to town with a load of potatoes. He ex- 
changes one bushel for ten pounds of sugar, another for a 
book, five bushels for a pair of shoes, and ten bushels for a 
table, etc. Now these exchanges are supposed to be between 
commodities of equal value. But how is this value ascer- 
tained? Only by comparison. But we can only compare 
such commodities as are similar. Of course, the articles 
mentioned are all useful but such form no point of compari- 
son. The one thing similar in all these articles is that they 
are the product of human toil. Labor expended on natural 
products has created value. Ricardo says, " The value of 
a commodity . . . depends on the relative quantity of labor 
which is necessary for its production." He further says 
that the exchange-value of wares, the supply of which may 
be indefinitely increased, depend, exclusively, on the quan- 
tities of labor necessarily required .to produce them and 
bring them to the market, in all states of society. As these 
articles are exchangeable with each other, they are supposed 
to have an equal value, and so must contain an equal amount 
of human labor. These labors, of course, are different in 
kind, but the difference is simply in complication. A longer 
time is required to learn one than another. All such may 
be reduced to common or unskilled labor. In every hour's 
work of the mechanic there is contained a portion of the 
time devoted to mastering his trade. So in the profession ; 
years have been spent in preparation, thus one hour's work 
may be equal to many hours of common labor. The me- 
chanical work of writing a book may require but a short 
1 Co-operative Co??i??iouwealth ) Gronlund, p. 6. 



THE POSTULA TES OF SOCIALISM. 



49 



time, but the preparatory work may have consumed many 
years. One hour of writing may equal ten or fifteen hours 
of common labor. Upon this Ricardo says : " I am not in- 
attentive to the difficulty of comparing one hour's labor in 
one employment with the same duration of labor in another. 
But the estimation of different qualities of labor comes soon 
to be adjusted in the market with sufficient precision for all 
practical purposes." 

But suppose someone should say that, as one person may 
require twice as much time to make a given commodity as 
someone else, he might want double quantity of everything 
in exchange. Should such be demanded he would likely be 
told, that it made but little difference how long it took him 
to produce a given article, as long as an average workman 
could perform the work in half the time. 1 The labor that 
measures value, then, is not the labor of any one man, but 
the average amount of labor required in the production of any 
commodity. It is what is called the " socially necessary labor." 
Were the special labor of individuals to measure value, we 
should have no end of prices or values. It is not, however, 
the individual, but social labor that determines the value. 
Social or abstract labor must be distinguished from individual 
or concrete labor. Social or abstract labor means the aver- 
age common or unskilled labor, — the average amount of such 
labor required to produce a given commodity. A farmer re- 
ceives for his barley, not what it cost him under special condi- 
tions to raise the crop, but what farmers in general are getting. 
In other words, it is not his individual labor that determines 
the price, but the average social labor of all farmers. Thus, 
under Socialism, if fifty thousand bushels of barley were 
needed and the production of it required ten thousand days 
of social labor, it would follow that the socialistic value of 
one day's labor would be five bushels of barley. Again, to 
1 Co-operative Commonwealth, Gronlund, p. 9. 



50 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

obtain the value of cotton cloth, we would divide the num- 
ber of yards which, say, five thousand men can produce, by 
five thousand, and we will get the share of the product which 
goes to each man. The value of these yards will be one 
day. If five thousand men can produce one hundred thou- 
sand yards of cloth, the share of each laborer will be twenty 
yards, which amount constitutes one day of social labor time. 
" We see, then," as Marx says, " that that which determines 
the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of 
labor socially necessary, or the labor time socially necessary, 
for its production. . . . Commodities, therefore, in which 
equal quantities of labor are embodied, or which can be pro- 
duced in the same time, have the same value. The value of 
one commodity is to the value of any other as the labor time 
necessary for the production of the other. ' As values, all 
commodities are only definite masses of congealed labor- 
time.' " * Labor, remember, in society is a social factor, — 

1 Capital, Marx, p. 4. 

Note. — The labor embodied in a commodity includes not only the 
living labor or the number of working days, but the labor embodied in 
the raw materials, and also that portion of labor consumed by the wear 
and tear of machinery. The value of any commodity is equal to the. 
sum of the factors of the labor process, — the working power, the raw 
materials and the wear of the machinery. All of these factors but rep- 
resent labor which is consumed, and which together constitute the 
cost of the product, — the labor embodied in its production. Natural 
products, which are furnished by nature gratuitously, absorb labor, and 
the value thus given these products depends upon the amount of labor 
absorbed. The values of the means of production, i. e., the raw mater- 
ials and the wear of machinery, are constituent parts of the value of the 
finished product. The labor represented by these factors and consumed 
in production is so much labor expended in the process, and therefore 
forms part of the labor cost. The value, then, of a finished product is 
represented by the total labor crystallized in the product. If the pro- 
duct requires one hundred days of common labor to create the raw 
materials and that part of the machinery which is used up in produc- 
tion, and another hundred days in working up these materials into the 



THE POSTULA TES OF SOCIALISM. 51 

not an individual but a collective thing. Now do not mis- 
comprehend this position of Marx. It is abstract labor time, 
not concrete, that is compared. Labor of all kinds must be 
reduced to abstract labor time. This is constantly being 
done, and value in exchange is always the result of this opera- 
tion. By this process the labor of the artist as well as that 
of the hod-carrier is expressed in units of simple labor time. 
Thus the value of one hour's labor of the artist might repre- 
sent five units and that of the hod-carrier one. All elements 
of concrete labor, then, are reduced to abstract labor, and 
expressed in units of abstract labor time. While the differ- 
ent kinds of concrete labor have different values the units 
of abstract labor have equal values. The sum of these units 
required in the production of any commodity represents its 
exact value. All labor, as has been shown, is but multiplied 
common labor. And all kinds of labor, manual, mental and 
moral, can be reduced to units of abstract labor time. 
Quality of labor is thus considered, it being reduced to 
quantity. If one unit of abstract or social labor repre- 
sents one hour, the value of artisan and professional labor, 
being but multiplied common labor, would be easily com- 
puted. The number of abstract units contained in each 
hour of artisan and professional toil would be practically 
ascertained with little difficulty. This in reality is the 
method of to-day, as seen when reduced to scientific analysis. 

finished product, then the value of the completed product would be 
two hundred days of common labor. The labor value of the raw 
materials and that represented by the waste of machinery — in fact, the 
whole capital consumed — passes over and is embodied in the new pro- 
duct. Thus supposing the labor embodied in the raw materials repre- 
sents five days of labor, and that one-fourth of a machine, which it cost 
twenty days of labor to produce, is used up in the process. Now if 
ten days of living labor is added, the cost of the completed product 
will be twenty days of social labor, and will exchange for any pro- 
duct embodying a like amount of social labor time. 



52 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

Thus, if the hod-carrier gets one dollar per day and the car- 
penter three dollars, it is evident that each hour of the 
carpenter's labor represents three times as many units as 
that of the hod-carrier. In other words, if one hour of the 
hod-carrier's labor represents one unit, one hour of the car- 
penter's labor represents three units, and at ten cents per 
unit the hod-carrier receives one dollar per day, and the 
carpenter three dollars. Likewise the judge. He has spent 
years in preparation, therefore ought to be rewarded for this 
unremunerated period. One day's concrete labor of the 
judge represents, say, five of the hod-carrier's and three of 
the carpenter's. Reduced to abstract labor time, ten units 
represent one day's work of the hod-carrier, thirty that of the 
carpenter, and fifty that of the judge. As already quoted, 
Ricardo says, " The estimation of different qualities of labor 
comes soon to be adjusted in the market with sufficient 
precision for all practical purposes." This is the only scien- 
tific law of the measure of value, for the element of time is 
the only common factor in different kinds of labor, and labor 
is the only common factor in different commodities. The 
value of any labor depends upon the number of social labor 
units it contains, and the value of any commodity depends 
upon the quantity of social labor time. We may define 
value, then, in the words of Gronlund : " As the quantity 
of common human labor measured by time which on an 
average is requisite, by the implements generally used, 
to produce a given commodity." But it may be said, Sup- 
pose that I find a diamond in the streets, is not the value 
more than the trouble of picking it up ? To this Mr. 
Gronlund replies : " People are not in the habit of find- 
ing diamonds in the highways. If they were, diamonds 
would soon be as cheap as pebbles. Diamonds would cost 
the finder dearly enough if he were to seek for them in 
Hindostan or in Brazil where they are usually found. Re- 



THE POSTULATES OF SOCIALISM. 53 

member that the average amount of labor is a part of our 
definition." 

Now one word in regard to the law of supply and demand. 
We have seen that it is the labor expended on an article that 
measures its primary and natural value, or as it is some- 
times called, its " level value." The only effect that demand 
and supply have, is to make the price, the value as expressed 
in money, vibrate now a little below and now a little above 
their level value. This has reference, as already stated, to 
such articles as can be indefinitely produced. There are, 
however, other wares but few in number, such as rare paint- 
ings, that cannot be thus indefinitely increased. All such 
have what may be called a monopoly or scarcity value, their 
value being determined, not by the labor congealed in them, 
but strictly by demand and supply. " Human labor and 
scarcity create all values. But since it is evident that 
scarcity cannot create anything real, we must conclude that 
the values which are due to it are unreal ones ; and that it 
is human labor alone that creates all real values. . . . This, 
of course, does not imply that there is not much labor which 
does not create any value at all." * 

Again, it may be asked, How will demand and supply 
work under Socialism ? Suppose consumption and produc- 
tion should not fit together ? Of course, statistics will en- 
able the new commonwealth to determine the amount of 
production needed, but it might be thought that the change 
of fashion would cause miscalculations. This evil, however, 
is mostly caused by the cupidity of manufacturers, and so 
would be removed by Socialism. The nation would exert its 
influence to preserve the economic equilibrium ; but should 
there be an excess in the supply or demand, from miscalcu- 
lation or other cause, the prices might have to be lowered, and 
goods sacrificed, or raised and sold at a profit, in order to 

1 Co-operative Co??i??iojiwealth, p. II. 



54 



MODERN SOCIALISM. 



adjust the relation between production and consumption. 
Probably, on the whole, the gain and loss would about 
balance each other. Under Socialism the standard of con- 
sumption would not vary as to-day, inasmuch as the prole- 
tarian and plutocrat would both disappear. Of course, 
warehouses, the same as now, would be necessary to keep 
the balance. 

It is the labor crystallized in an article which determines 
its level value, and it is this which determines even the value 
of gold and silver. From this it follows that a definite 
amount of labor, or social labor time, is far more appropriate 
as a measure of value than anything else. The labor checks 
issued under Socialism would be a promise to pay on demand, 
say, one day's labor, and this day of social common labor 
would represent the measure of value. 

One other point in this connection which is of vast im- 
portance. We have seen that for every day's work per- 
formed, a check would be issued to the laborer, calling for 
the product in return. But there are many citizens who 
have performed work which is necessary and still is unpro- 
ductive, such as judges, teachers, clerks, etc. These must be 
remunerated, and also a certain part of the product reserved 
as capital. Provision must be made for all these legitimate 
claims. The rent fund would partially meet this demand, 
but in addition to this there will probably have to be an 
impost laid on the sales. Perhaps the goods of twenty-four 
days labor will be sold for checks representing twenty-five 
days labor. Thus each would receive the full product of his 
labor either as direct revenue, or as public benefit. Each 
laborer would receive for his day's labor a check, represent- 
ing one day's labor, less his share of the impost. Similarly 
those engaged in unproductive employments would receive 
checks out of the rent and impost funds. 

It may be asked, How will labor be graded under the new 



THE POSTULA TES OF SOCIALISM. 55 

regime ? What relation will exist between unskilled, skilled 
and professional labor ? Under the new order undoubtedly 
the ratio of wages in vogue at the time would furnish the 
gradation of labor. As I will show presently, this ratio need 
not always be continued, but probably the gradation existing 
at the time of the change would provide the starting-point. 
In view of the great economies of social production it would 
undoubtedly be safe to fix the normal day of common labor 
at five hours, with double pay. Each hour would represent 
one unit of abstract labor. Suppose we place the value of 
the unit at fifty cents, then the common laborer would re- 
ceive two dollars and fifty cents per day, skilled and profes- 
sional labor in the ratio of three and five, or two and three, 
according to the proportion at the time of the change. Ex- 
perience, of course, would determine whether the value of 
the unit was too high or too low. This, remember, is merely 
a suggestion. 

As the laborers in each line of industry would be entitled 
to the whole product of their labor, they would distribute 
this amount among themselves as they saw fit. Take for 
example the boot and shoe industry. They determine 
among themselves the rate of remuneration between skilled 
and unskilled labor, and also the quantity of labor embodied 
in their product. From this, the amount to go to each 
laborer is only a matter of figures. As the price of their 
commodity concerns the whole commonwealth, its price-list 
would be submitted to the proper officials for approval ; but 
the division of the product — the rate of remuneration — con- 
cerns only the laborers themselves. Each branch of in- 
dustry and each department will be entitled to all the wealth 
they create, and it would remain for them to decide how 
much they would create. If in any factory they chose to 
work but one day a week, then they would have but the 
value of one day's products to distribute among themselves. 



56 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

Or if any man does not care to work, it is his own business. 
If he did not work he would receive no pay. Nor need we 
fear that these matters will not be settled, for not to work is 
to starve. Should any laborer feel wronged by the action of 
his fellows, he would have the courts to which to look for 
redress. Now the ratio upon which labor would be grad- 
uated at the commencement of the new order, would be 
based upon the fact that the grades above common labor 
need to be compensated for the years of apprenticeship and 
study given to qualification. But after the Co-operative 
Commonwealth had been in full operation for several genera- 
tions, and the artisans and professions had been supported 
by society during their years of qualification, and universal 
education, equal opportunites and diffusion of wealth had 
done their work, and love, patriotism and self-respect had 
lifted men to a higher level, then another rule would be 
applicable. The ratio of differentiation might gradually 
diminish until all labor should receive equal compensation 
for equal labor performed. This would undoubtedly be the 
ideal state. Manhood and brotherly love require it. Noth- 
ing can so aid in the development of character as economic 
equality. When men are secure from daily wants, atten- 
tion is given to the higher activities. The highest ideal is, that 
every man should serve society according to the best of his 
ability, and be rewarded by the full satisfaction of his wants. 
If every man had enough, why should any be desirous of 
more ? Why should a professional man want more than an 
average worker, if the latter has all that he can possibly use ? 
Why, then, should it be thought that men with ability will 
complain, if they have the same material reward as others ? 
The man of ability is, because of his superior endowments, 
more blessed than the average man. In a right state of 
human affairs, such men would spurn the offer of mere pay. 
The real heroes of the world have been above such incen- 



THE POSTULATES OF SOCIALISM. 57 

tives. Men will work harder for honor and duty than for 
money. 

Those who would fain be frightened over the equalization 
of income, seem to forget that such a tendency is already at 
work among the masses. The small producers, if not thrown 
directly into the proletarian class, are reduced in income to 
that level, while the difference between the propertyless is 
continually diminishing, and their wages, after much fluctua- 
tion, are gradually approaching the point of uniformity. 
The difference, however, between the tendency to economic 
equality under the present system and under Socialism is, 
that to-day the tendency toward equalization of incomes is 
by pressing the higher incomes down toward the lower, 
while under Socialism the process would be reversed, the 
lower being continually raised toward the higher. Socialism 
would tend toward an equality in well-being ; capitalism tends 
toward an equality in pauperism. 

But this question is not as important as is usually sup- 
posed. We must remember that the Co-operative Common- 
wealth is not a fixed system, but rather the most flexible of 
systems, aiding and abetting social evolution in every depart- 
ment. There is no form of wage payment now in vogue 
which is incompatible with the spirit of Socialism. Should 
equality of income be introduced and prove disastrous, as 
our friends prophesy, it would not mean the overthrow of 
social production ; but rather the introduction of another 
principle of distribution. 

The social ideal is economic equality. Says Edward 
Bellamy: — " Economic equality is the obvious corollary of 
political equality as soon as the economic system is [fully] 
democratized. Quite apart from ethical considerations in 
its favor, it follows, as a matter of course, from the equal 
voice of all in determining the method of distribution. What- 
ever a democratic state undertakes must be undertaken for 



S 8 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

the common — that is the equal — benefit of all." J The 
application of the democratic idea to our economic system 
would lead inevitably to this solution. Economic equality, 
however, would have to wait until industry should be fully 
organized upon the co-operative plan, and until the other con- 
ditions noted, should be realized. Says Professor Parsons : — 
" Some people have difficulty with this idea of economic 
equality because they remove it out of its natural environ- 
ment — a co-operative or mutualistic commonwealth — and 
apply it to present conditions. Of course it would be absurd 
to have equal division now. . . . [But] when the whole state 
is a partnership, equal division of profits will not be absurd 
but perfectly proper and natural. It is very unfair to test 
the idea by any but mutualistic standards — nobody dreams 
it would work in any competitive group. " 2 To realize this 
ideal, egoism must be extinguished in the human heart, and 
altruism become the ruling principle of human nature. 

As the realization of this noble ideal is far away in the 
future, why trouble ourselves concerning it to-day ? Its 
accomplishment, however, we must hold as an ideal, for its 
realization will ultimately be attained. The law of love, — 
" Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself n — will at last be 
triumphant. Our duty is to establish the Co-operative Com- 
monwealth. We need not fear but that a fair and just dis- 
tribution of wealth will be attained and social justice realized. 

1 The Programme of Nationalists, Bellamy, p. 7. 

2 The Philosophy of Mutualism, Parsons, p. 16. 



THE QUESTION OE INTEREST. 59 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE QUESTION OF INTEREST. 

In the olden times the usurer was simply a leech, profit- 
ing by the distress of others. The money loaned was not 
put to productive uses, but was borrowed because of some 
urgent needs, and so to take advantage of man's misfortunes 
was considered immoral. To-day the matter presents another 
aspect. Money is borrowed for the purpose of establish- 
ing some industry, and thus becomes a means of exploiting 
labor power. A man uses money in buying and selling labor, 
and makes the difference between its exchange-value and 
its value in use. Usury has now lost its original character- 
istic, and is considered legitimate. If a man borrows money 
to use productively in making money, it is but fair that he 
should pay for its use. This is the real reason that interest 
has come to be regarded as proper. Interest is but a part of 
withheld wages, a part of the fleecings. If a man borrows 
money for the purpose of using it to make more money, he 
ought, of course, to divide the spoils. 

Many reasons have been given in justification of interest, 
none of which, however, are satisfactory. All are hazy and 
evidently designed to patch up the present contradictory 
system of economics. Political Economy exists for the pur- 
pose of bringing harmony into the existing order, and so it 
has sanctioned interest as a permanent feature of social ar- 
rangements, which in reality is but a temporary phase of 
economic evolution. Political Economy attempts to explain 
things as they are, rather than as they ought to be. In seeking 
a justification for the present order, it has given many reasons 
for the existence pf the custom, all of which fail to go to the 



60 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

root of the matter. They simply confuse men's minds lest 
they behold the true process of capitalist accumulations, — 
that of the absorption of surplus-value. 

Most of the arguments given in support of interest are 
flimsy indeed. We are told that interest is a reward for ab- 
stinence. But why should a man be rewarded with an in- 
crease ? The boy who abstains from eating his peanuts at 
night is rewarded by having them the next day; he does not 
expect them to multiply during the night. Again we are told 
that interest is in payment for service rendered, but the 
service is reciprocal, — it is a question who renders the greater 
service, the borrower or the lender. Capital will soon decay 
unless in productive use. The borrower is necessary as a 
preserver of capital. Capital is kept in existence by perpet- 
ual reproduction, and were it not for labor, there would soon 
be no capital to be rewarded. This fact has been well stated 
by John Stuart Mill in the following language : — " When men 
talk of the ancient wealth of a country, of riches inherited 
from ancestors, and similar expressions, the idea suggested 
is, that the riches so transmitted were produced long ago, at 
the time when they are said to have been first acquired, and 
that no portion of the capital of a country was produced this 
year except so much as may have been this year added to 
the total amount. The fact is far otherwise. 

" The greater part in value of the wealth now existing in 
England has been produced by human hands within the last 
twelve months. A very small proportion indeed of that 
large aggregate was in existence ten years ago ; of the present 
productive capital of the country scarcely any part, except 
farmhouses and factories, and a few ships and machines, 
and even these would not in most cases have survived so 
long, if fresh labor had not been employed within that period 
in putting them into repair. 

<c The land subsists, and the land is almost the only thing 



THE QUESTION OF INTEREST 6 1 

that subsists. Everything which is produced perishes, and 
most things very quickly. Capital is kept in existence from 
age to age, not by preservation but by perpetual reproduc- 
tion." 

Thus we see that the service rendered by the borrower 
to the lender, is fully as great as the service rendered by the 
lender to the borrower. 

Socialists give the only true reason for interest. It is a 
part of the appropriation and, therefore, under the present 
system, perfectly proper. Capitalists working under this an- 
archical social system are not to be blamed for this appro- 
priation ; to do otherwise would mean ruin. It is the system, 
which compels injustice, that should be condemned. " So- 
cialism is not opposed to capital as such, nor the capitalist, 
but to the industrial system in which the wrongs of labor are 
inherent, and admit of no remedy so long as private capital, 
which is the corner-stone of the system, exists." l Socialists 
realize that the capitalist is as much the product of the 
present regime as the wage-worker. Even should the indi- 
vidual capitalist sincerely desire to rectify the evils under 
which we suffer, he is powerless. He might gladly assign to 
labor a larger share of the product, but such an attempt would 
only result in his own ruin. He is obliged to appropriate the 
difference between labor's value in exchange and its value in 
use ; it is only thus that he can survive. It is the system 
that is wrong, for these evils are a part of the present eco- 
nomic order. Not private property but private capital must 
be abolished, for it has become a prolific source of injustice 
and misery. Mammon would fall with the abolition of pri- 
vate capital, and with him that pride and vanity that sets man 
against man. With the abolition of private capital, indus- 
trial tyranny would cease, and also the tyranny of private 
wealth. Man cannot serve God and Mammon, and the only 
1 Socialism from Genesis to Revelation, Sprague, p. 67. 



62 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

safety for American institutions is to destroy Mammon. In 
place of an aristocracy of wealth, establish an aristocracy 
of character. Socialism is the only thing that can dethrone 
Mammon. 

Interest-bearing capital would not exist under Socialism, 
for private ownership of the means of production would be 
impossible. And so interest, which is the remuneration for 
the use of capital in production, would cease. The reason 
why interest is paid to-day is, that money is employed pro- 
ductively with a view to profit by the sale of the product. 
A man borrows money to make money, and interest is but a 
fair division of the booty. When all capital is social, and a 
man can no longer use money in making money, he will not 
borrow and pay for its use. Under Socialism Aristotle's 
view that money should not breed will be fully realized. 
The abolition of interest will be nothing arbitrary, but the 
natural result of the socialistic principle of collective capital. 
The dependence of labor upon capital, as at present, is un- 
natural and the result of a perverse social system. The evils 
thus perpetrated can only be remedied by establishing the 
Co-operative Commonwealth, in which capital will become 
subservient to labor, and minister to labor's happiness and 
freedom. 



COMPETITION VS. COMBINATION. 6j 

CHAPTER VII. 

COMPETITION VS. COMBINATION. 

Competition has served a purpose in the past, and has 
been an important factor in progressive industry. It has 
been to industrial evolution what war has been to social evo- 
lution. But both have had their day as factors in civilization. 
Competition has now become the cause of nearly all the waste 
and ill-will which threatens modern society. Most of these 
evils can be traced directly to the door of competition. Out 
of ten manufacturers nine may fully realize the evils that 
affect labor, especially woman and child labor, and sincerely 
desire to remedy those conditions. But the tenth man has 
no such scruples ; he is willing to grind women and children 
down to the lowest notch, for the sake of his own avarice, 
and the others are obliged to adopt his methods or forsake 
the field of competition. This compels the nine men to be 
grasping and inhuman or face bankruptcy. Thus it is, that 
in competition the man the least moral sets the standard to 
which all must conform. Professor J. B. Clark, in his valu- 
able work on The Philosophy of Wealth, says : — " There is one 
code for the family, the social circle, and the church, and a 
different one for the mercantile life. It is a common remark 
that . . . a sensitive conscience must be left at home when 
its possessor goes to the office or the shop. We hopelessly 
deprecate the fact, we lament the forms of business depravity 
that come to our notice, but attack them with little confi- 
dence. ,; x 

It must be clear to every one. that the " social ideal must 
be co-operative and not competitive." The theory of com- 

1 As quoted by Sprague in Socialism from Genesis to Revelation, p. 25. 



64 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

petition is, that a nation in which every man tries to get the 
better of every other man will be happier and more prosper- 
ous than a nation in which every man tries to help his neigh- 
bor. " What we choose to call competition, a struggle be- 
tween the weak and the strong for existence, is, in the latter 
stages of production, when the competitors are very unequal, 
a blind and disastrous method of procedure. It precludes 
sobriety and honesty/' x 

The very essence of competition is antagonism, and neces- 
sarily begets cruelty, injustice, cunning, oppressiveness and 
selfishness. Competition undoes all that religion and ethics 
can do toward the upbuilding of humanity ; it violates the 
law of love, and sacrifices manhood for material wealth. 

" Competition is evil in every way. It is wrong because it 
is wasteful ; because it develops servility, hatred, untruthful- 
ness, cunning, trickery, pride, oppression, — everything but 
brother-love and the ideal character of a Christian gentle- 
man ; because it produces reckless luxury on the one hand, 
and untold misery on the other; because it creates igno- 
rance, disease and crime ; because it creates countless antag- 
onisms instead of social cohesions. ... It neutralizes in- 
dustrial forces. ... It creates a feverish force in some men, 
not for the sake of useful labor but for victory over their 
fellows. ... It devitalizes the very nerve of energy by de- 
priving them [the laborers] of all interest in their work. . . . 
Competition puts a million in the pockets of an ignorant, idle 
dude, and loads his splendid, industrious neighbor with mis- 
fortune and debt. ... It builds the slums of the cities, and 
the hate-engendering palaces of the rich. It has given us a 
standard of value and a division of labor that sacrifices man- 
hood to merchandise. It gives activity and growth to all 
that is hard, combative, unscrupulous and unsympathetic in 
man, and hinders the development of brother-love, helpful- 
1 Social Theories, Bascom, p. 412. 



COMPETITION VS. COMBINATION. 65 

ness, truthfulness and public spirit. It rewards injurious 
activities, and gives some of the highest prizes as a premium 
for some of the greatest wrongs, dishonesties, oppressions and 
injustices. It is destructive of liberty and individuality, as 
well as of virtue and comfort ; it ruins men body and soul. It 
condemns vast numbers of children to a birthright of misery, 
disease and sin. ... It periodically disturbs the nation's in- 
dustries with flurries and panics. It gives the keys of the 
world's wealth to Wall Street gamblers. It wastes five-sixths 
of the industrial forces of the world. ... It has given us a 
distorted civilization, in which one per cent, of the people 
own more than three-fifths of the wealth, five per cent, are in 
chronic want, five per cent, are pernicious or useless, ten per 
cent, insufficiently nourished, fifty per cent, unjustly treated, 
receiving less of power and wealth than is their due, and 
ninety per cent, insufficiently and improperly educated. . . . 
It prevents the survival of the fittest. . . . Competition is 
the insanity of the past, and the colossal crime of the 
present. " * 

The motto of competition is, " Every man for himself and 
the devil take the hindmost. " The principle of competition 
is the principle of duplication. It confesses that no business 
can be properly done unless two or three times as many are 
engaged in it as are necessary. Says Edward Bellamy : — 
" If one of you should apply the same method of utter plan- 
lessness, utter lack of insight, utter lack of co-operation, to 
your own factory or farm, your friends would have you in an 
asylum in twenty-four hours, and be called longsuff ering at 
that." 

" Why, then, this regret over the approaching doom of a 

system under which nothing can be properly done without 

doing it twice, which can do no business without overdoing it, 

which can produce nothing without over-production, which in 

1 Philosophy of 'Mutualism , Parsons, pp. 9, 10, 1 1. 

5 



66 



MODERN SOCIALISM. 



a land full of want cannot find employment for strong and 
eager hands, and finally which gets along at all only at the 
cost of a total collapse once in seven years, followed by a 
lingering convalescence ? " x 

Competition is already giving way to the principle of com- 
bination as evidenced by the trust, which has been called, 
"The unconscious forerunner of Socialism." The policy of 
restricted competition is simply a recognition of the Socialist 
demand. Competition is the individualistic way of doing 
business ; combination is the socialistic way. Every trust is 
a concession to Socialism. It virtually admits the truth of 
socialistic charges, that competition is wasteful, and that by 
combination the cost of production could be greatly reduced 
and harmony established in the industrial realm. A trust is 
simply the use of Socialism for the benefit of the few. 

The question is, whether we shall have organized capital 
in the hands of individuals or in the hands of society ? That 
business in the future must be organized is evident. The 
choice is not between competition and combination, for com- 
petition is already disappearing. Choice must be made be- 
tween the two kinds of combination, plutocratic or demo- 
cratic. Combination either of the few or of the many is 
inevitable. The question, then, is not Combination versus 
Competition but Plutocracy versus Socialism. 



1 The New Ideal, July, 1889. 



INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY. 67 

CHAPTER VIII. 

INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY, OR DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. 

Socialism is industrial democracy. It would put an end 
to the irresponsible control of economic interests, and sub- 
stitute popular self-government in the industrial as in the 
political world. 

Economic democracy is a corollary of political democracy. 
A man should have a voice in the industrial group of which 
he is a member, as well as in the political group. This de- 
partment of life is of the utmost interest to every man. Why 
should he be deprived of a voice in that which is so vital to 
his welfare ? Why republicanize politics and not republi- 
canize industry ? 

The present economic rulers hold the livelihood of the 
people in their power, and admit of no responsibility. So- 
cialism would bring this industrial regime under popular 
government, to be exercised by the people in the interests of 
the people. 

Popular self-government must be substituted for the present 
aristocratic, despotic form of government. There must be 
an end of private control of public interests for private 
aggrandizement. Industry itself must be democratized. 
The economic system upon which the welfare of all depends 
is too important to be left in the hands of irresponsible par- 
ties. When individual enterprise was supreme, there was 
opportunity for all to acquire a livelihood, but the economic 
evolution has completely changed these conditions. We 
find no longer a free field for competition. Territory after 
territory has been fenced in by great corporations, until our 
economic system presents the aspect of a centralized gov- 



68 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

ernment, administered by monopoly in the interests of 
monopoly. 

What is the alternative to this ever increasingly unfortu- 
nate condition of affairs ? The people as individuals cannot 
gain control of their economic interests, for the industrial sys- 
tem of the future must be systematized ; but they can bring 
these interests under collective control, and this is the only 
alternative to economic oligarchy. The industrial, like the 
political system, ought to be managed by the people them- 
selves. This would not involve more government as is often 
affirmed, but would merely substitute one form of govern- 
ment for another. The present industrial management is 
despotic in its nature. In place of this despotism, it is pro- 
posed to substitute a pure self-government, — a social democ- 
racy. There is no reason why we should have sovereign 
rule in the industrial realm, more than in the political ; or 
why we should abrogate chattel slavery, and leave untouched 
industrial slavery. We have now arrived at the point where 
choice must be made between government by the few and 
for the few, or by all and for all. As I have said, it is impos- 
sible to restore to the people individually, control of their 
economic interests ; but as a people collectively, they can 
systematize and manage their interests in their own behalf, 
substituting for the present irresponsible rule of the few, 
responsible public agents, managing the affairs of society for 
the benefit of all the people. 

Industrial democracy, being in the line of evolution, is 
certain of attainment. Democracy has already been attained 
in politics and religion, and industry is passing through 
similar stages of development. 

In the early period of human history men fought singly. 
Next they gathered into groups for self-preservation, forming 
the tribe or nation, which necessitated a leader, a chief, or 
a king. When these rulers began to abuse their power, the 



INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY. 69 

people rose in their might and asserted their independence. 
They dethroned the monarchs and selected their own govern- 
ors, making them responsible to society for their official acts. 

In religion we find the same development. Men first 
worshipped alone, then they gathered into groups and formed 
religious societies. These organizations were led by men 
appointed for the purpose. When the priests began to abuse 
their power the people rebelled. Reformations were inaug- 
urated and religious democracy established. 

Do we not find the same thing in industry ? Man first 
worked individually, then gradually there came division of 
labor, and they became associated in groups. These associ- 
ations grew into combinations of greater and greater magni- 
tude, each requiring management, and so chiefs and captains 
of industry appeared. These rulers, like those in politics 
and religion, have perverted their power, and the people will 
again rise and make their economic rulers, — as they did their 
political and religious rulers, — responsible to themselves. 

Democracy has always followed despotism. Will it fail 
in the industrial realm ? — No ! The aristocracy of wealth, 
like that of the priesthood and of birth, will die. We shall 
have an industrial republic, planted upon the foundations of 
our political republic. Our present system of industrial 
despotism will be surplanted by industrial democracy. So- 
cialism means " industrial self-government." 

It is sometimes said, " Extension of the sphere of govern- 
ment would result in tyranny." This objection rests on a 
great misapprehension. Government as at present consti- 
tuted has two functions, — the coercive and the administra- 
tive. While Socialism would enlarge the latter, it would 
render unnecessary the former. These two functions of 
government are closely bound up with the present system. 
Under competition, where each labors for his own interest, 
some check is necessary to the promptings of individual 



7 o MODERN SOCIALISM. 

selfishness. Government is thus endowed with certain ob- 
noxious powers made necessary by our false system of 
economics. In the inevitable conflict constantly arising 
over private interests, the State holds the balance of equity. 
But with the incoming of Socialism all interests would be 
united, class antagonisms cease, and with it, the coercive 
function of government. As humanity moves toward per- 
fection, the co-operation of all for the restraint of each will be 
less and less needed, but the co-operation of all for the help 
of each will be more and more required. 

All Socialists work for the decentralization of government. 
They hold that the present state is too highly centralized. 
They desire to transfer functions from the centre to local 
units, that the business of the people may be near to the 
people. Local self-government is their watchword. They 
also desire to reduce the functions of government to a 
minimum. While they favor such regulation as is necessary 
in carrying out the principles of the Co-operative Common- 
wealth, beyond this they decline to go. Outside the economic 
and educational spheres their attitude is laissez-faire. 

All government activity, then, is not socialistic. Only 
that can be called such which renders collectivity dominant 
in the economic sphere. As a matter of fact, Socialism 
disapproves nine out of ten of the schemes proposed to 
enlarge the sphere of government. Much which fanaticism 
and ignorance has denounced as socialistic is really anti- 
socialistic, and has received the condemnation of Socialists. 
All pensions, subsidies, grants, and such kinds of govern- 
mental interference, are designed to bolster up the very thing 
that Socialism disapproves of. 

It is often objected that Socialism would increase the 
spoils of office a thousandfold. This is also based upon a 
misconception. The objection implies the retention of the 
present political machinery, while the Socialist insists upon 



INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY. 



71 



a political change hand in hand with the economic change. 
He insists on new machinery for the new motive power. 
The present political machinery would be clumsy and unsuit- 
able to the new social order. Socialists " cannot use a 
machinery which renders legislators the people's masters 
and allows them to conduct public affairs with a view to 
private and class interest." 

The new order will have no use for president or governors. 
The power vested in these officials, enables them to become 
masters during their terms of office. Under Socialism the 
veto will rest in the hands of the people. All appointments 
would be made from below, thus establishing a true democ- 
racy, — the form of administration in which no one can be- 
come master of the situation and conduct affairs with a 
view to private profit. 

Neither would there be any use for our present represent- 
ative system, — or /^representative system as it might well 
be denominated. It needs no argument to demonstrate 
that our present representative system is false, both in theory 
and practice. Laws passed to-day seldom represent the 
will of the majority. This is due to the district system 
which compels a party to lose all votes cast in a district 
until a plurality is gained, and obliges the party that has a 
plurality to throw away all votes in excess. Again, the 
more parties in the field the smaller the number necessary 
to elect, and the further the legislator comes from repre- 
senting a majority in his district. Methods have been pro- 
posed to remedy this obvious evil, but the most perfect 
representative system that could be devised, would be a 
failure in this age of dishonesty and selfishness. The so- 
called representative is in treality a master. His power 
over his constituents is absolute. He is subject to no in- 
struction from them, and may vote against every measure he 
is pledged to support. Popular sovereignty begins and 



7 2 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

ends at the ballot-box. When his ballot is cast the voter 
surrenders his boasted self-government into the hands of his 
representative, whom he empowers to vote as he pleases. 
We need not expect good government from a system that 
places a premium on dishonesty. The fewer hands in which 
we place the power of government, the more liable is that 
power to be abused. In place of this representative system 
we would inaugurate the referendum, which means the sub- 
mission of the laws to the people for ratification or rejection. 
If the referendum were in force to-day, but a small propor- 
tion of the laws that are passed in our legislatures would 
ever be heard of. The referendum would make our law- 
makers our servants, who merely assist the people in mak- 
ing the laws. Were the veto power to-day in the hands of 
the people, a legislature full of scheming politicians could do 
but little harm. The vote of the legislator would be of no 
more value than that of any other citizen. While lobbyists 
can " fix " a few legislators, they cannot well get at all the 
people. The referendum would require that public opinion 
be back of all laws ; unless public opinion is favorable to it 
no law can be effective. It would be expedient because 
bills would then be intelligently discussed before they be- 
came laws. Among the founders of our government there 
were many of aristocratic tendencies, and many others who 
feared to trust the people, so the government which was es- 
tablished was in the nature of a compromise. There is still 
another step to be taken before we have true political 
democracy, — the initiative and referendum must be estab- 
lished. Direct legislation would do away with the political 
ring, boss and heeler. Mr. Brice, in the American Common- 
wealth, in speaking of the growing sentiment in favor of 
direct legislation says, — " They [the Americans] remark 
with truth that the mass of the people are equal in intelli- 
gence and character to the average State legislator, and are 



INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY. 73 

exposed to fewer temptations. The legislator can be 'got 
at,' the people cannot. The personal interest of the in- 
dividual legislator in passing a measure for chartering banks 
or spending the internal improvement fund may be greater 
than his interest as one of the community in preventing bad 
laws. It will be otherwise with the bulk of the citizens. 
The legislator may be subjected by the advocates of 
woman's suffrage or liquor prohibition to a pressure irresisti- 
ble by ordinary mortals ; but the citizens are too numerous 
to be all wheedled or threatened. Hence they can and do 
reject proposals which the legislature has assented to." l 
As De Tocqueville has said, "The remedy for the evils of 
our so-called democracy, is more democracy." Direct legis- 
lation is the only effective method of applying the remedy. 

Under Socialism, the economic and social organization 
and the political organization, would become synonymous. 
Every man would be a public functionary, and so a part of 
the administration. 

Doing away with representatives does not mean that there 
would be no directors of affairs. There would be agents 
of the people to perform certain work, but they would be 
administrators. Their tenure of office would continue dur- 
ing good behavior. These directors would remain no longer 
than the interests of the people were subserved. Let me 
give briefly a sketch of the Socialist administration. This 
is admirably stated by Mr. Gronlund, and I can do no better 
than cite his words : — " Suppose, then, every distinct branch 
of industry, of agriculture, and also teachers, physicans, etc., 
to form, each trade and profession by itself, a distinct body, 
a trades-union (I simply use the term because it is conven- 
ient), a guild, a corporation managing its internal affairs 
itself, but subject to collective control. 

lt Suppose, further, that the ' heelers ' among the opera- 
1 The American Commonwealth, Bryce, vol. 1., p. 472. 



74 MODERN SOCIALISM, 

tives in a shoe factory in a given place come together and elect 
their foreman, and that the ' tappers/ the c solers,' the * fin- 
ishers/ and whatever else the various operators may be called, 
do likewise. Suppose that these foremen assemble and elect 
a superintendent of the factory, and that the superintendents 
of all the shoe factories in that district in their turn elect 
a — let us call him — district superintendent. Again, we 
shall suppose these district superintendents of the whole 
boot and shoe industry to assemble themselves somewhere 
from all parts of the country and elect a bureau chief, and 
he with other bureau chiefs of related industries — say, the 
tanning industry — to elect a chief of department. 

" In the same manner I shall suppose that we have got 
a chief for every group of related mechanical and agricul- 
tural and mining pursuits, a chief for the teachers, another 
for the physicians, another for the judges ; further, one or 
more chiefs for transportation, one or more for commerce ; in 
fact, suppose that there is not a social function whatever that 
does not converge in some way in such chief of department." 

" I mean that these chiefs of department shall form the 
national board of administrations, whose function it shall 
be to supervise the whole social activity of the country. 
Each chief will supervise the internal affairs of his own de- 
partment, and the whole board control all those matters in 
which the general public is interested. 

" But just as all inferior officers, this national board will 
be nothing but a body of administrators ; they will be 
merely trusted agents to do a particular work ; they will 
be in no sense ' governors,' or i rulers ; ' or, if anybody 
should choose to call their supervision and control ' gov- 
ernment,' it will, at all events, rather be a government over 
things than over men. For they will decree no laws. 

" If a general law is thought expedient, one that will affect 
the people at large or those of any one department, then we 



INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY. 75 



suppose this national board simply to agree on the general 
features of the measure, and thereupon intrust the drafting 
of the proper bill either to the chief whose department it 
principally concerns, or what might be the usual course, to 
the chief of the judges. When this draft has been discussed 
and adopted, the board will submit it to the people either of 
the whole country or of the department, as may be, for their 
ratification. The national board is thus no lawmaker, there- 
fore no ' government/ but an executive body strictly." * 

Each directing officer would be held responsible, not only 
for his own work, but for that of his subordinates. While ap- 
pointments would be made from below, dismissals would come 
from above, — " Subordinates elect, superiors dismiss." This 
would obviate divided responsibility by making the officers 
responsible to some one person. In case any officer abused 
his power he himself would be dismissed by his superior. 
Should he be found inefficient, a foreman would be removed 
by the superintendent, a superintendent by the bureau chief, 
or a bureau chief by the department chief. The latter of- 
ficial, however, would be made responsible to the whole body 
of his subordinates. If any department or member thereof 
became dissatisfied with the chief, the imperative mandate 
could be called into service in the same manner as the initi- 
ative. That is, any person could draw up a petition demand- 
ing the removal of the officer and upon receiving the signa- 
tures of a majority of the department, his office would be 
declared vacant by the proper officers and an election called 
to fill the vacancy. The initiative and imperative mandate 
could, if thought advisable, be used in the case of every of- 
ficer. Thus, the foreman of any shop or superintendent of 
any factory could be recalled by the very persons who placed 
him in power, the majority always ruling. The officer thus 
deposed would take his place among the rank and file and 

1 Co-operative Commonwealth, Gronlund, pp. 194, 195. 



j6 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

there remain, unless elevated by a subsequent election. Is 
not this democracy, — an administration by the people ? 
Every man would have a part in the administration of affairs. 
That such a system would work well in practice we may see by 
studying labor organizations and trade unions. These unions 
furnish us the skeleton of the future commonwealth. 

That Socialism would greatly improve government is evi- 
dent because it would make administration of vital concern 
to all the people. It would raise into prominence a nobler 
class of men, and draw into the public service the talent of 
the country. As the prosperity of all would depend upon 
efficient management, the full moral strength and mental 
acumen of the nation would be at the public service. 

People of all parties are beginning to realize that the root 
of present difficulties is economic. Says Sidney Webb, 
" There is every day a wider consensus that the inevitable 
outcome of Democracy is the control by the people them- 
selves, not only of their own political organization, but, 
through that, also of the main instruments of wealth produc- 
tion ; the gradual substitution of organized co-operation for 
the anarchy of the competitive struggle ; and the, consequent 
recovery, is the only possible way, of what John Stewart 
Mill calls the \ enormous share which the possessors of the 
instruments of industry are able to take from the product/ 
The economic side of the democratic idea is, in fact, Social- 
ism itself." x 

Says Professor Parsons, "Not until the nation's workers 
are partners in the nation's productive capital will complete 
industrial self-government be possible, and as manhood, love 
and justice demand self-government, they also demand the 
essential basis of self-government, the public ownership of 
productive capital." 2 

1 Fabian Essay 's, American Edition, p. 9. 

2 Philosophy of Mutualism, Parsons, p. 20. 



STRENGTH OF CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH. 



77 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE MORAL STRENGTH OF THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMON- 
WEALTH. 

Society as at present constituted, offers upon every hand 
varied temptations to evil. Much testimony might be ad- 
duced to evidence the responsibility of society in this direc- 
tion. Many a man is a criminal, not from choice but from 
the force of circumstances. It is not natural but social causes 
which produce individual wealth and individual poverty. 
The social philosophers have not gone deep enough into the 
causes of present conditions. Much of the crime, perfidy, 
and venality of to-day are due to the laws, methods and in- 
stitutions of modern society. That business life tempts one 
to be untruthful, none will deny. All forms of mercantile 
transactions are filled with deception. The ability to drive 
a bargain, is the ability to make things appear different from 
what they really are. Herbert Spencer informs us that " as 
the law of the animal creation is * eat or be eaten/ so of the 
trading community it may be said the motto is, ' cheat or be 
cheated.' " The practice of dismissals for non-success in 
selling has led the clerks to practice all sorts of dishones- 
ties, and resort to any method to effect a sale. Competition 
has resulted in various kinds of dishonest tricks ; in fact, as 
John Bright once said, " Adulteration is another name for 
competition. " These things are so common that I need not 
dwell upon them. 

All of this perfidy and dishonesty will cease when tempta- 
tion is removed. " Abolish private capital, and you remove 
almost entirely the temptation to steal ; and, should one steal 
from the State, he could make little use of the stolen prop- 



78 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

erty. Merchants could not cheat, for there would be an end 
to all buying and selling. Lying would no longer be ' one 
of the great powers of Europe/ or America, for there would 
be little to lie about. Manufacturers could not deceive, for 
the State would be the sole producer. Contractors would no 
longer defraud ; bank defalcations would not be heard of * 
when banks ceased to exist ; trustees could not embezzle 
when there was no property to be held in trust : in short, all 
crimes against property, and crimes against persons, prompt- 
ed by desire for money, would certainly disappear in the 
socialistic state, because the temptations to commit them 
would be removed. " x 

Socialism by removing poverty would eliminate one of the 
chief causes of felony. The ablest defenders of capitalism 
admit the advantages of the socialistic state. Says Dr. Wool- 
sey : — " There would be no tramps, no public beggars, and 
no strangers coming to steal. ... In fact, the eighth com- 
mandment would be far easier to keep than in society as it 
now is. The sixth commandment, too, might also lie on the 
shelf. . . . Then a number of crimes such as forgery, em- 
bezzlement, counterfeiting — all crimes, in fact, against prop- 
erty, and many of those which injure the person, would be 
much limited in their sphere of operation . . . and if an end 
were put to all these things, society evidently would return 
to a state of things in which lawyers, judges, and volumin- 
ous statutes would not be necessary." 2 To be able to labor 
in behalf of such a grand consummation ought to inspire us 
with zeal and enthusiasm. Socialism wishes to environ 
men with such conditions that it will be advantageous for 
them to be honest. It proposes to remove temptation, by 
surrounding people with such a social constitution that it 
will be for their interest to do right. Such a reformation is 

1 Socialism from Genesis to Revelation, Sprague, p. 279. 

2 Communism and Socialism, Woolsey, p. 261. 



STRENGTH OF CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH. 79 

worthy the concentrated efforts of all faithful and noble 
citizens. 

It is said, " Socialism cannot be established until human 
nature is improved." I contend that human nature is all 
right as it is. The thing needed, is to make right conduct 
possible. The present system of society is founded upon 
dishonesty and deceit. To maintain present conditions un- 
til men reform, is putting the cart before the horse. Social- 
ism says, " Furnish man with such an industrial environment 
that if he is inclined to be honest he will not be forced to be 
dishonest in order to succeed." The ethical ideals of Social- 
ism have inspired its adherents with a zeal and devotion 
worthy of the highest praise. The aim of Socialism is to 
realize in all the relations of life the brotherhood of man. 
To attain this ideal, provision is made for all dependent 
classes, the very system itself providing a mutual insurance, 
where all industrially incapable shall be guaranteed a suffi- 
cient income. Socialism would minister to this feeling of 
brotherhood by furnishing an environment favorable to the 
development of moral qualities. The importance of a proper 
environment cannot be over-estimated. The destruction of 
the idle class at both ends of the social scale would be whole- 
some, for " idleness is morally pernicious." 

The demand of Socialism is equity, — social justice. It is 
not simply a question of expediency, but one of morals. 
To allow unequals to prey upon each other, is to allow the 
strong and cunning to ensnare the weak and innocent. There 
was often really more fellow-feeling between the master and 
the slave, than is now manifest between the employer and 
the employed. The condition, however, of the laborer under 
the present system, is hopeless. The evils from which he 
suffers cannot be mitigated and the system maintained. In 
place of this laissez-faire which separates society into two 
classes, we must establish the essence of Socialism, — brother- 



8 o MODERN SO CIA LISM. 

hood. Socialism means "we all ;" individualism means " I 
myself/' Socialism means " all for each, and each for all;" 
individualism means " each man for himself. " The essence 
of individualism is self-interest, which results in selfishness 
and sin, which when finished bring forth death. " The ethics 
of Socialism are clearly akin to Christianity if not identical 
with them." The basis of Socialism is love, sympathy 
and brotherhood. 



SOCIALISM AND MODERN PROBLEMS. 8 1 

CHAPTER X. 

SOCIALISM AND MODERN PROBLEMS. 

i. — The Liquor Traffic. 

Having seen how Socialism would completely solve the 
monetary issue, the tariff question, the wage problem and 
the relation between employer and employee, I now wish to 
call your attention to the liquor traffic and point out the 
socialistic solution of this gigantic enigma. I need not go 
into details to show the enormity of this insatiate Moloch. 
Its ruinous effects are seen on every hand. But the problem 
of how to deal with this monster is as vital and important 
as ever. 

In spite of all our temperance organizations, the Church 
and restrictive legislation, the consumption per capita of 
alcholic liquors is constantly increasing. To know how to 
deal with this evil, we must first ascertain its source. The 
root of the saloon power is private interest. " Neither local 
enactments nor police surveillance can do much so long as 
public-houses are in the hands of private individuals who 
find their profit in encouraging intemperance without regard 
forage or youth, rich or poor." L The first step, then, toward 
mitigating this evil is to socialize the traffic. It must be 
entirely removed from private control and manipulation. It 
is this private gain that renders the business unmanageable, 
and furnishes the incentive that paralyzes all effort in be- 
half of temperance reform. The socialization of the traffic 
would render private gain impossible and thus remove the 
hindrance to moral and religious restraint. But so long as 

1 Fifth Special Report of the Commissioner of Labor, p. no. 

6 



82 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

the business is left in private hands little can be accomplished. 
Under Socialism the traffic would be conducted to satisfy 
public demand, and those who handled it would in no way 
profit by the sale of the commodity. As their salaries would 
not depend on the amount of liquor sold, they would have 
no incentive to violate the laws. The case is far different, 
however, where there is seven or eight cents profit in a ten- 
cent drink, and the income of the dealer depends upon how 
much he can sell. Under such conditions we need look for 
but little improvement in the line of temperance. 

The abolition of private capital, which would mean the 
socialization of the industry, is the only practical remedy. 
When this is accomplished the moral and religious forces 
will have an opportunity to become effective. Should the 
people ever rise to the plane of absolute prohibition it could 
be easily obtained, for having no private interest in opposi- 
tion, all that society need do would be to cease to offer the 
stuff for sale. 

An advantage immediately attained by nationalizing the 
traffic, would be in removing all adulterations. The State 
would certainly have no motive in poisoning its citizens. 
Socialism would greatly decrease intemperance by abolishing 
its natural ally, — the present industrial system. 

The cost of the liquor traffic to the American people is 
something astounding. Our prohibition friends often point 
out the saving per capita which would result from abolishing 
this evil. But would the laborer be benefited by this saving ? 
We are aware of the beautiful picture presented of the 
laborer's home beautified and furnished with that which he 
had formerly expended at the saloon. This delineation, 
however, proceeds upon the assumption that his wages would 
remain the same. If this be true, his benefit is the result 
of his rising above his class. Were all to become temperate 
and so able to save one-half their wages, their income would 



SOCIALISM AND MODERN PROBLEMS. 83 



soon fall to the point of bare subsistence. If one man saves 
fifty per cent, of his wages, the amount formerly spent in 
drink, he can live and support his family as well as he did 
before his reformation on one-half his income. As long as 
labor is a commodity and the labor market is over-stocked, 
the press of competition will compel him, sooner or later, to 
cut under the regular rate. Another, to secure employment, 
follows suit, and finally he finds himself no better off than 
before. This would be the inevitable result of prohibition 
under the present system. One man may reform and receive 
a benefit, but if all should reform he would lose his advan- 
tage. 

We are often pointed to the young man, who by thrift 
and industry, constantly rises to positions of greater and 
greater importance, while his fellows who. are unsteady and 
intemperate are not thus favored. But here note that the 
reason for this man's advance was not alone his faithfulness, 
but the unfaithfulness of the others which gave him an 
advantage. Now suppose all had been faithful, and steady, 
and temperate. Would he not have lost his advantage ? 
Could all have been thus benefited by cultivating these 
virtues ? Evidently not, for all could not be overseers, there 
being opportunity for the services of but one. The fact that 
this man was the only one temperate secured for him the 
position. Thus it does not follow that because one sober 
and industrious man succeeds better than his fellows who 
are lazy and intemperate, that all would succeed by being 
upright. If there were a panic in a theatre one strong six- 
footer could force his way out over the bodies of those w T ho 
were weaker. But it would be foolish for him to say that if all 
had been strong six-footers they could have gotten out. If 
such had been the case, the probability is, he would not have 
gotten out himself. All such remedies as thrift, intelligence 
and temperance, only result in increasing the employer's 



84 MODERN SOCIALISM. 



profits. So long as labor is a commodity and the means of 
production are owned by a few, such virtues, good as they 
are, can effect no permanent relief. The competition in 
the labor market will compel men to accept the lowest wages 
upon which they can live and keep up their labor power. 
The number of the unemployed is constantly increasing, and 
the struggle for an opportunity to earn a livelihood, even of 
the poorest kind, is often hopeless. In times of business 
depression millions of men are out of employment and glad 
of a chance to work at any price. The man who by his tem- 
perate habits has been able to save a few dollars a year, is 
thrown out of employment, and considers himself fortunate 
if he is able to keep body and soul together. 

Temperance is one of the noblest of virtues, but it is in 
no way a solution of the economic and social problems of to- 
day. It would eliminate much evil and suffering, but would 
not eradicate the wrongs of the present order. The absolute 
prohibition of the liquor traffic, even could it be accomplished, 
would not remove poverty, or secure to the laborer a larger 
share of the product of his toil. 

Socialism furnishes the only solution to the liquor traffic. 

2. — Poverty. 

Socialism would entirely abolish poverty. The existence 
of poverty in the midst of plenty is a libel on modern civili- 
zation. This condition is entirely due to false social arrange- 
ments, whereby some monopolize the means and products 
of industry. 

It is not necessary for me to dwell upon the condition of 
the masses. Volumes might be filled with citations of 
misery, degradation, squalor and want that would make one 
heartsick. If private ownership of land and capital neces- 
sarily keeps millions in poverty in order that a few may roll 



SOCIALISM AND MODERN PROBLEMS. 85 

in luxury, then private ownership of these instruments must 
go the way of the feudalism which they superseded. 

Under the present regime a few have monopolized the 
earth and the fulness thereof and are enabled to live in 
idleness and luxury. Is it any wonder that poverty exists 
under such conditions ? Poverty would be impossible were 
every man obliged to labor for his living instead of living 
off the labor of others. Socialism would abolish poverty by 
doing away with this useless, parasitic class. One must not 
fall into the fallacy of supposing that only the idle rich are 
useless and that all laborers are useful. We must also add 
to the wealthy class, all their domestic servants, and a large 
body of workers who are engaged in producing things that 
only the rich can purchase. All consume necessities but 
only a few are engaged in their production. If one hundred 
men are thus employed and fifty are withdrawn by the owner 
of an estate, and set at work constructing a castle, the re- 
maining fifty must do double the work, for there are just as 
many to feed but only half the number to produce. It is 
evident, then, that the more men there are withdrawn from 
productive employment to serve the wealthy, the fewer there 
are to produce the necessities of life and the harder they 
will have to labor. 

" The population [of Great Britain] is about 36 millions. 
The annual income about 5,000 millions. One-third of the 
people take two-thirds of the wealth, and the other two- 
thirds of the people take one-third of the wealth. 

"That is to say that 24 millions of workers produce 5,000 
millions of wealth and give 4,000 millions of it to 12 millions 
of idlers and non-producers. 

"This means that each worker works one-third of his 
time for himself, and two-thirds of his time for other 
people." ' 

1 Merrie England, Blatchford, p. 205. 



86 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

Now if we deduct from this 24 millions the number of 
women and children who produce nothing, and the millions 
of men who produce only superfluities and luxuries, we 
shall find that not over one-half of the 24 millions, or one- 
third of the entire population, are engaged in the production 
of the necessities of life. What is true of England is prac- 
tically true of the United States. At present not over one- 
third of the population are engaged in producing necessi- 
ties. Now if one-third produce enough for all, three-thirds 
would produce three times our requirements ; or, if one-third 
can create our necessities by working nine hours a day, three- 
thirds can produce the same in three hours a day. And more 
than this, for under public management, owing to the great 
economies of public production, the three hours labor would 
not only produce an abundance of necessaries but of luxuries 
as well. This would mean leisure for all to be utilized in 
securing health, in the enjoyment of life, and the attainment 
of knowledge. 

Remember, the poor want just what the rich want, and 
that is not work, but the products of work. How often do 
we hear luxury defended because it gives employment. The 
fallacy of this is well satirized in the following lines : 

11 Now Dives daily feasted and was gorgeously arrayed, 
Not at all because he liked it but because 'twas good for trade. 
That the people might have calico he clothed himself in silk, 
And surfeited himself on cream that they might have more milk. 
He fed five hundred servants that the poor might not lack for bread, 
And had his vessels made of gold that they might have more lead. 
And e'en to show his sympathy with the deserving poor, 
He did no useful work himself that they might do the more." 

What we all want is not work but the results of work, — 
that which labor produces. If one man secures more than 
his share it is because some one else has received less. 
The belief that all can be rich is an error. The very fact 



SOCIALISM AND MODERN PROBLEMS. 87 

that some are wealthy evidences that others are poor. The 
power of a dollar in one man's pocket is due to the lack of 
a dollar in the pockets of others. The art of making some 
rich is also the art of making others poor. To say that 
a man has amassed a fortune of one million dollars does 
not mean that he has added that amount to the exist- 
ing wealth, but rather that he has been able to appro- 
priate that amount of wealth. He has been able to es- 
tablish claims upon present and future production equal to 
that value. His fortune, then, in so far as he is concerned, 
is an unearned one. No man can create that value in a 
lifetime. If he receives that amount it is only because he 
has been able, by existing right and custom, to appropriate 
that amount of wealth created by his fellows. Abolish this 
exploitation and poverty will disappear. Poverty is the 
necessary concomitant of the present industrial order. The 
destruction of capitalism will obliterate poverty. 

Socialism is the only solution to the problem of poverty. 

3. — Labor-saving Machinery. 

The introduction of labor-saving machinery, constitutes 
one of the most serious problems in the economic realm. 
I will cite a few statistics relative to the displacement of 
labor as given in the First Annual Report of the Commis- 
sion of Labor. 

" In the manufacture of agricultural implements new 
machinery during the past fifteen or twenty years has, in 
the opinion of some of the best manufacturers of such im- 
plements, displaced fully 50 per cent, of the muscular labor 
formerly employed. 

11 In the manufacture of small-arms, . . . 1 man individ- 
ually turns out and fits the equivalent of 42 to 50 stocks in 
10 hours as against 1 stock in the same length of time by 



88 MODERN SOCIALISM, 

manual labor, a displacement of 44 to 49 men in this one 
operation. 

" In brick-making improved devices displace 10 per cent, 
of the labor, while in manufacturing fire-brick 40 per cent, 
has been displaced. 

" The manufacture of boots and shoes offers some very 
wonderful facts in this connection. In one large and long- 
established manufactory in one of the Eastern states the 
proprietors testify that it would require 500 persons working 
by hand processes to make as many women's boots and 
shoes as 100 persons now make with the aid of machinery, 
a displacement of 80 per cent. . . . Goodyear's sewing 
machine for turned shoes, with 1 man, will sew 250 pairs in 
1 day. It would require 8 men working by hand to sew the 
same number. By the use of King's heel-shaver or trimmer 
1 man will trim 300 pairs of shoes a day, where it formerly 
took 3 men to do the same. One man with the McKay 
machine, can handle 300 pairs of shoes per day, while, with- 
out the machine, he could handle but 5 pairs in the same 
time. In nailing on heels, by the use of machinery, 1 man 
and a boy can heel 300 pairs of shoes per day. It would 
require 5 men to do this by hand. In finishing the bottoms 
of shoes, 1 man with a sand-papering machine can handle 
300 pairs, while it would require 4 men to do the same by 
hand. 

" The broom industry has felt the influence of machinery, 
the broom-sewing machine facilitating the work to such an 
extent that each machine displaces three men. One large 
broom-manufacturing concern, in 1879, employed seventeen 
skilled men to manufacture 500 dozen brooms per week. 
In 1885, with nine men and the use of machinery, the firm 
turned out 1,200 dozen brooms weekly. Thus, while the 
force is reduced in this one establishment nearly one-half, the 
quantity of brooms sewed is much more than doubled. 



SOCIALISM AND MODERN PROBLEMS. 89 

" In the construction of carriages and wagons, a foreman 
of fifty years' experience testifies that the length of time it 
took a given number of skilled workmen, working entirely 
by hand, to produce a carriage of a certain style and quality 
was equal to thirty-five days of one man's labor, while now 
one man produces substantially the same style of carriage 
in twelve days. 

" In the manufacture of carpets, some of the leading man- 
ufacturers in the country, and men of the largest experience, 
consider that the improvement of machinery in the past 
thirty years, taking weaving, spinning, and all processes to- 
gether, have displaced from ten to twenty times the number 
of persons now necessary. 

" The cotton goods industry offers, perhaps, as striking 
an illustration as any of the apparent displacement of labor, 
a Delaware house considering that the displacement has 
been 17 per cent, outside of motive power. 

" In the manufacture of flour there has been a displace- 
ment of nearly three-fourths of the manual labor necessary 
to produce the same product. 

" In the manufacture of furniture from one-half to three- 
fourths only of the old number of persons is now required. 

a In leather-making, in some grades of morocco, there has 
been an apparent displacement of perhaps 5 per cent., and 
in the manufacture of patent leather nearly 50 per cent. 

" In the production of metals and metallic goods, long- 
established firms testify that machinery has decreased man- 
ual labor 2>Z I- 3 P er cen t. ... By the use of improvements 
and inventions during the past ten or fifteen years in ham- 
mers used in the manufacture of steel, there has been a 
displacement of employees in the proportion of nearly ten 
to one. A first-class journeyman can make from 600 to 
1,000 two-pound tin cans per day by hand process. By the 
use of machinery he can make from 2,000 to 2,500 per day. 



90 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

In the making lard-pails, a machine is in use by which one 
man, with one boy as tender, can produce as much as was 
formerly produced by ten skilled men. ... In the manu- 
facture of bread boxes, what was done in 1876 by thirteen 
men and women working together, is now accomplished by 
three men. 

"One boy, running aplaning-machine in turning out wood- 
work for musical instruments and materials, does the work 
of twenty-five men. 

"In the manufacture of wall-paper the best evidence puts 
the displacement in the proportion of one hundred to one. 

" In silk manufacture, 40 per cent, represents the dis- 
placement, according to some authorities, in the general man- 
ufacture, while in weaving there has been a displacement of 
95 per cent, and in winding of 90 per cent. 

" A large soap-manufacturing concern very carefully esti- 
mates the displacement of labor in its works at 50 per 
cent. 

" In woollen goods, in the carding department, modern 
machinery has reduced muscular labor $2> P er cent. ; in the 
spinning department, 50 per cent., and in the weaving de- 
partment, 25 per cent. . . . An establishment in Indiana has 
worked out the displacement of muscular labor by machinery 
very carefully and in the following ratio : In weaving wool- 
lens, one machine equals six persons; in spinning, one 
machine equals twenty persons ; in twisting, one machine 
equals fifteen persons ; in picking, one machine equals forty 
persons, and in carding, one set of patent carders will turn out 
more in one day than the old carders would in one week. 

11 The mechanical industries of the United States are 
carried on by steam and water power representing, in round 
numbers, 3,500,000 horse-power, (a) each horse-power 
equalling the muscular labor of six men ; that is to say, if 
men were employed to furnish the power to carry on the 



SOCIALISM AND MODERN PROBLEMS. 91 

industries of this country, it would require 21,000,000 men, 
and 2 1,000,000 men represent a population, according to the 
ratio of the census of 1880, of 105,000,000. The industries 
are now carried on by 4,000,000 persons, in round numbers, 
representing a population of 20,000,000 only. ,, 

Many other illustrations are given but this will suffice. In 
commenting upon these, the Commissioner of Labor says : — 
" It must stand as a positive statement, which cannot suc- 
cessfully be controverted, that this wonderful introduction 
and extension of power machinery is one of the prime causes, 
if not the prime cause, of the novel industrial condition in 
which the manufacturing nations find themselves. 

" The direct results, so far as the present period is con- 
cerned, of this wonderful and rapid extension of power ma- 
chinery are, for the countries involved, over-production, or, 
to be more correct, bad or injudicious production. ... If 
England, the United States, France, Belgium, and Germany 
unitedly produce more cotton goods than can be sold to their 
regular customers or in the world among people that use 
cotton goods, over-production exists, and it does not matter 
that the millions of human beings who do not consume and 
who do not desire cotton goods are unsupplied. So far as the 
factories and the operatives of the countries concerned are 
to be taken into consideration there does exist a positive 
and emphatic over-production, and this over-production could 
not exist without the introduction of power machinery at a 
rate greater than the consuming power of the nations involved 
and of those depending upon them demand ; in other words, 
the over-production of power machinery logically results in 
the over-production of goods made with the aid of such 
machinery, and this represents the condition of those coun- 
tries depending largely upon mechanical industries for their 
prosperity." " 

Over-production does not mean that more goods are pro- 



92 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

duced than are needed to satisfy the needs of all, but that 
more goods have been produced than can be sold. The over- 
production of commodities means idle workmen. Thus the 
introduction of labor-saving machinery constitutes a serious 
problem. And it is far more serious now than when the report 
was made (1886), for the displacement of labor is far greater to- 
day than at that time, and is constantly increasing. Scarcely 
a day passes that w T e do not read of some new invention 
which displaces labor. Are these new inventions beneficial 
to workmen? It may be seriously questioned. Machinery 
has passed into the hands of a special class, and it has been 
estimated that two-thirds of the benefit goes to them and 
only one-third to consumers. Of course all laborers are 
consumers and have been thus indirectly benefited. But the 
real question is, Has machinery lightened a day's toil ? This 
is what truly measures the benefits of machinery to labor. 
With John Stuart Mill, we may w r ell question if such is the 
case. 

The trouble, how r ever, is not with machinery, for machinery 
is designed to serve man and mitigate the struggle for exist- 
ence. If it fails in this respect, it is not because machinery 
is injurious, but because its benefits have been monopolized. 
It is not machinery which is an evil but the private owner- 
ship of machinery. No one would claim that land is an evil, 
but the private ownership of land can hardly be termed a 
blessing. 

Could the air which is necessary for life be appropriated 
by the few, it would not mean that the air was injurious, but 
only the method of dealing with it. So with machinery. It 
ought to be of service to man in lessening his toil, and ren- 
dering his life more enjoyable, but in the hands of a few it 
has become a social curse. It has supplanted human labor 
and has brought to the workingmen but little benefit. The 
introduction of labor-saving machinery has turned the work- 



SOCIALISM AND MODERN PROBLEMS. 



93 



ingman out of employment, and has reduced his wage to the 
point of bare subsistence. So it must ever be under the 
capitalistic regime. Labor will be more and more displaced 
as inventive genius is developed. 

The introduction of labor-saving machinery is constantly 
rendering more and more laborers superfluous, and so creat- 
ing an industrial reserve army, which serves to keep wages 
down to the point of bare subsistence. The result of this 
enforced idleness on the part of workmen, reduces consump- 
tion to a minimum and so undermines home markets. Ma- 
chinery should be the servant of man and not his oppressor. 
It should be the means of releasing man from toil and ren- 
dering him free, but in the hands of the capitalist it has be- 
come a lever toward aggravating his servitude. Says Pro- 
fessor Parsons : — " Manhood is made the slave of machinery 
instead of its master. Thousands of children, tens of 
thousands of men and women, spend their whole lives in 
feeding, cleaning, and ministering to these great, dumb, 
beautiful monsters that have usurped the throne of our 
civilization in the interests of a few cunning men who con- 
trive to keep the favor of the monarchs of the nineteenth 
century." 

The existence of labor-saving machinery under the present 
regime \s a serious problem. The time will surely come when 
machinery will do the work of the world. Think of the 
thousands of workmen already displaced through the introduc- 
tion of new methods. Machines are being produced nearly 
every day that increase the productivity of labor from ten to 
one hundred fold. This means that one does the work of 
many, and leaves the many idle upon the streets begging for 
bread. Among the latest inventions is a hoop-driving appara- 
tus which is creating consternation among the coopers in 
St. Paul. Skilled mechanics are being eliminated, only a few 
common laborers being necessary to watch the machines. In 



94 



MODERN SOCIALISM. 



western mines machines are being introduced, each doing the 
work of eight men. Mr. Hobbs of the Hobbs' Manufactur- 
ing Company has invented a machine which bids fair to make 
a great change in the tag industry. The machine, which 
works automatically, and is tended by one girl does the work 
of five persons. And now word comes from Italy that a new 
tanning machine has been invented whereby skins can be 
converted into leather in forty-eight hours, thus doing away 
with the expensive process now in vogue. This invention 
bids fair to revolutionize the tanning industry. The displace- 
ment of labor here involved may be seen from the fact that 
two men can attend to five machines, beside doing other 
work. These instances might be greatly multiplied did space 
permit. The announcement of such inventions is a matter of 
daily occurrence. Men are continually being supplanted by 
labor-saving machines and thrown helplessly on to the street. 
What are these superfluous workmen to do ? So long as the 
few possess the machinery they will monopolize the product. 
The only solution of the problem is for labor to own the ma- 
chine. Then it will serve man as designed and not compete 
with him as it does to-day. Socialism is the only solution of 
this problem. 

Under Socialism the introduction of new machinery would 
result in a blessing to all. If some new invention displaced 
one-fourth of the laborers in a certain department, these 
superfluous workers could then become engaged in the pro- 
duction of luxuries which could not be produced before 
because of lack of labor force. When the time came, through 
the introduction of new methods, that all the necessities and 
luxuries are produced in abundance, then further improve- 
ments could be applied toward reducing the hours of labor. 
Thus all under the new order would be equally benefited by 
the improved method of production. 

The stimulus which Socialism would give invention when 



SOCIALISM AND MODERN PROBLEMS. 



95 



inventors are rewarded directly for their labor, will be very 
marked. There would probably be organized a department 
for mechanical improvements where inventors would receive 
the best of wages, and especially be rewarded for great dis- 
coveries. There is every reason to suppose that we are in 
the beginning of an inventive era, the progress of which will 
be the substitution of machinery for men in every department 
of life. The changing from one department to another will 
then be but a subsidiary matter. Even at present it takes 
but a few days' study for a skilled workman to master a new 
machine. Under Socialism the youth would receive a full 
industrial training, and would be amply instructed in the use 
of machinery. He would become the skilled mechanic, 
trained in the mechanism of machinery, and so capable of 
adjusting himself to any department of industrial life. 

The machine under the present regime competes with labor ; 
under Socialism it would serve labor. The only way that ma- 
chinery will be of much service to labor is for labor to own 
the machine. 

4. — Taxation. 

Under Socialism the many evils of taxation would disap- 
pear by the abolition of the system itself. Scarcely anything 
connected with our present order of society is open to greater 
criticism. The inquisition on the part of assessors begets 
prevarication on the part of tax-payers, and the effect upon 
morality is most disastrous. The whole system results in 
the most abominable inequalities. Yet we have become so 
accustomed to these disreputable methods, that we are oblivi- 
ous to the inequalities involved. 

Professor Ely, in Taxation in American States and Cities, 
says : — " Our present system, then, must be rejected as not an- 
swering the requirements of practical morality. It is thought 
necessary at every step to reinforce it with oaths of citizens 



96 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

and administrative officers, and there is nothing which so 
blunts the conscience as the frequent oaths in our political 
life. " 

" Our system of taxation tends to bring the morality of the 
community down to the level of its most unscrupulous mem- 
bers, and that in this way : No device known to man can 
enable the assessor to get at certain classes of personal 
property in the hands of the cunning and unscrupulous. 
They make false returns, and their neighbors know it; the 
entire community, in fact, knows that men of large means are 
not bearing their fair share of taxation ; people feel that it is 
an iniquity to place upon them burdens which properly be- 
long to others, and so they, too, make inadequate returns, 
and still the voice of conscience with meaningless quibbles." 

" Another aspect of this case is presented by the facts of 
competition in business. Those who escape the payment 
of a fair share of business taxes have an advantage in busi- 
ness which enables them to undersell their competitors, and 
when a business man sees ruin staring him in the face because 
his dishonest neighbor makes false returns and pays taxes on 
only a fractional part of his property, the temptation to do 
likewise is almost irresistible, except for moral heroes, and 
moral heroism cannot be made the basis of governmental 
action. " 

Under Socialism all this evil would be removed. There 
would be no taxes to pay and consequently none to evade. 
The commonwealth would derive its revenues from rent and 
such a percentage added to the cost of commodities as would 
be necessary for the collective needs. The State being sole 
producer would simply retain such part of the product as 
is requisite to defray the general expenses. Thus the vast 
army of assessors and tax-collectors could be dispensed with 
and turned to some productive employment. 

Each would bear a share of the public expenditure in pro- 



SOCIALISM AND MODERN PROBLEMS. 97 

portion to his consumption, and none could evade, as at 
present, his just contribution to the social outlay. 

The rent, which would be utilized for public needs, is that 
of land used by citizens for houses or other private purposes, 
and would probably be regulated as at present by its utility. 
Agricultural land, of course, would be a part of the collective 
plant. 

Socialism would solve the problem of taxation. 

5. — Illiteracy. 

According to the Seventh Special Report of the Commis- 
sioner of Labor : — c< In the whole city of Baltimore the illit- 
erates constitute 9.17 per cent, of the native-born popu- 
lation and 12.40 per cent, of the foreign-born, the percent- 
age of both being 9.79. ... In the city of Chicago at large 
the illiterates constitute 0.81 per cent, of the native-born 
population and 8.31 per cent, of the foreign-born, the per- 
centage of both being 4.63. ... In New York the percent- 
age of illiterates is 1.16 of the entire native-born population 
and 14.06 of the foreign-born, the percentage for both being 
7.69. . . . Philadelphia shows . . . that 2.18 per cent, of 
all native-born persons are illiterate and 11.29 P er cen t. 
of foreign-born, the united percentage being 4.97." What 
is true of these cities is practically true of all others. One 
of the greatest problems of to-day is illiteracy. The present 
system is an enemy of education, inasmuch as it is for the 
interest of employers to secure child labor, and as the par- 
ents find it difficult to live without the help of their children, 
they, together with the capitalist, conspire to evade the law. 
There is no question but that the present capitalistic system 
is hostile to popular education, and it furnishes conditions 
favorable only to the education of the few. Socialism, by 
making compulsory education effective, and by removing the 
incentive to depriving children of instruction, would remove 
7 



98 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

the cause of illiteracy. It is generally conceded that Social- 
ism would lead to a higher state of education. Not only 
would Socialism raise the standard, but not meeting with 
the reactionary forces which now oppose its enforcement, 
its ends could be easily attained. Under the present con- 
dition of over-worked labor there is but little time or oppor- 
tunity for the development of the mind. Socialism would 
put an end to this wrong. The over-worked would be re- 
lieved. Were all the able-bodied to engage in useful labor, 
a few hours a day would suffice to produce all needful com- 
modities, and time would thus be given for the cultivation of 
the moral and intellectual natures. 

Socialism would surely remove illiteracy. 

6. — The Solution. 

One of the strongest features of Socialism is its all-inclu- 
siveness. This is marked in contrast with many of the patch- 
work schemes put forth by social reformers. Trades Union- 
ism might be conceived as benefiting a large element of 
society, but there would be many left behind, and among 
them the most wretched and dependent. There is and can 
be no sufficient remedy but Socialism for the evils from which 
society is suffering to-day. Many palliatives, besides Trades 
Unionism, have been proposed, most of which are socialistic 
in nature, but inadequate for the reason that they do not 
touch the root of the trouble. Profit-Sharing, Co-operation, 
Land Naturalization, Prohibition, Christianization of Capi- 
talism, and many other schemes, all are steps in the right 
direction, but of themselves are insufficient to produce indus- 
trial and social peace. 

Perhaps no plan that has been proposed is more futile 
than that of Christianizing the existing order. I say futile 
because it contains in itself a contradiction. The principles 
of the existing order are unchristian. The very Alpha and 



SOCIALISM AND MODERN PROBLEMS. 99 

Omega of capitalism is self-interest. The whole system 
exists by exploitation, which is the very essence of private 
capital. Can exploitation be Christianized? 

Another element of the present order is freedom of con- 
tract. We have but to look at the Stock Exchange and 
other speculations, which to-day pervade society, the corners 
secured on necessities of life and even the opportunities of 
work necessary to obtain the sustenance of life, — all of 
which are in accordance with this principle of freedom of 
contract, — to see the inherent evil in the working of this 
principle. The trusts and monopolies which are but per- 
petual corners are the result of this principle of freedom of 
contract. To say that such is unjust is perhaps too mild 
a word. Is not the intentional taking of something without 
giving an equivalent the essence of theft ? And does it 
make any difference, if to gain consent of him who is robbed, 
advantage is taken of necessity ? Forced acquiescence does 
not change the character of the transaction, or even calling 
it a contract mitigate the evil. 

In 1892, between the months of February and November, 
the price of coal in the East, as investigated by Congress in 
1895, was advanced by the coal railroads $1.25 and $1.35 
per ton. This extortion amounted to about $40,000,000 in 
one year. 1 It will not do to say that people need not buy 
coal if they think it too high. They must buy it or freeze, 
and it is only because of this necessity that the combine can 
exact the high rates. Private monopoly is the inevitable 
consummation of freedom of contract. Monopoly in private 
hands means the power to tax the people for private pur- 
poses. We deny the moral right of a few thus to take the 
advantage of the many to enrich themselves. We fail to 
see how such a principle can be Christianized. 

Another principle of the present order is competition. 

1 Wealth vs. Commonwealth, Lloyd, p. 14. 



ioo MODERN SOCIALISM. 

This has been called the hub of the industrial wheel. It is 
utterly unchristian and antagonistic to the very essence of the 
Gospel. " Competition is war, Christianity is peace." Com- 
petition being anti-Christian it cannot be Christianized ; it 
must be abolished. Slavery and polygamy both sought 
Christianization, but in vain. None of these evils can hope 
to perpetuate their lives by Christianization. 

Christianization cannot solve the problems of to-day, 
except through the means of Socialism. The evils from 
which we suffer are inherent in the capitalistic system. 
Poverty, illiteracy, intemperance, etc., are necessary con- 
comitants of the present industrial order. 

Socialism, then, is the only remedy, the only solution of 
modern problems. 



INDUSTRIAL DEPRESSIONS AND CRISES. ioi 

CHAPTER XL 

INDUSTRIAL DEPRESSIONS AND CRISES. 

One of the greatest anomalies of our present civilization 
is the vast body of the unemployed. This enforced idleness 
is a permanent feature of the capitalistic system, and con- 
stitutes what Marx calls an " industrial reserve army/' the 
size ever rising and falling with industrial activity and depres- 
sion. This class, however, has become permanent and is ever 
increasing, the number in times of crises and panics reach- 
ing enormous proportions. The uncertainty of employ- 
ment is one of the great curses of to-day. This sense of 
insecurity renders life almost unbearable. Is not such a 
condition of affairs amazing? Among this body of un- 
employed are men of every occupation, willing to work and 
supply each other's wants if given the opportunity. Why is 
this privilege denied them ? Why this vast waste of labor 
power ? Why must men suffer want, when they are willing 
to work and supply themselves with the necessities of life ? 
Is not a system that compels such involuntary idleness con- 
demned by the very act ? The resources of nature are 
ample, men are plenty, but both are idle, And why ? Simply 
because if the means of production were fully utilized, the 
supply would exceed the commercial demand ; and pro- 
duction being carried on for the sake of the profits, ceases 
as soon as the profits are threatened. Instead of producing 
for the purpose of satisfying social wants, curtailment of pro- 
duction is resorted to, factories are closed, men thrown out 
of employment and suffering increased. 

How can a system producing such a deadlock, creating 
artificial famine through which millions are reduced to 



1 02 MODERN SOCIALISM. 



misery and destitution, be defended? Society, which if 
permitted, could produce sufficient to supply the needs of all, 
is prevented from doing so by those who monopolize the 
means of production, — those who care not for society's needs, 
but produce only for the sake of profits. 

Nor is this all. The result of this present chaotic produc- 
tion, in all the fields where competition is still in force, brings 
periods of activity and depression with almost the certainty of 
prediction. Each producer acts for himself, all in secrecy, 
though his success will depend upon how much his rival pro- 
duces and sells. All goes well for a season, until suddenly 
we are confronted by an over-production, followed by in- 
dustrial depression and crisis. 

We may have an industrial depression without producing 
a financial or commercial crisis or panic, although finances are 
always more or less disturbed by such conditions, and fre- 
quently the financial crisis appears as the first evidence that 
the body economic is out of order. The real distinction 
between the panic or crisis and the industrial depression is, 
that the former is usually short and decisive, while the latter 
involves some duration of time. The underlying cause of 
both, however, is the same. These depressions and crises 
have not been confined to any one nation, but have been 
world-wide and nearly contemporaneous in all the great 
manufacturing countries. 

The Report of the Commission of Labor on Industrial 
Depressions gives a summary of dates as follows : Great 
Britain 1803, France 1804, the same nations again in 1810. 
In 18x4 the United States makes its appearance in indus- 
trial depressions. France again suffered in 18 13, and Great 
Britain in 1815, all three nations in 1818, also in 1826, but 
in 1830 the depression was confined to Great Britain and 
France. In 1837 trie crisis embraced all three countries and 
in addition Belgium and Germany, in 1847 a ^ these nations 



INDUSTRIAL DEPRESSIONS AND CRISES. 103 

were included with the exception of Belgium, which did not 
feel the depression until one year later. The next period of 
business stagnation began in Belgium and Germany in 1855, 
in France in 1856, and in the United States and Great 
Britain in 1857. Belgium again felt a depression in 1864, 
Great Britain and France in 1866, the United States in 1867. 
In 1873 all these nations experienced this same economic 
disease, and again in 1882 with the exception of Great 
Britain whose depression began a year later. In 1893 all 
these nations found themselves again suffering from this 
dread evil. Production had again exceeded commercial 
demand, which resulted in enforced idleness and untold 
suffering, not because the resources of nature had been ex- 
hausted, but because there had been too much produced. 
We had again the anomaly of misery on the one hand, and 
over-flowing storehouses on the other. Here, then, is a riddle 
which capitalism has never solved. " It is the 7'ednctio ad 
absurdum of the capitalist production." Socialism alone 
points out the cause of this phenomena ; it is the " anarchy 
of private enterprise. " 

This is well stated by Mr. Gronlund in the following 
words : — " Private enterprise compels every producer to pro- 
duce for himself, to sell for himself, to keep all his transac- 
tions secret. . . . But the producer and merchant daily find 
out that their success or failure depends, in the first place, 
precisely on how much others produce and sell, and in the 
second place, on a multitude of causes — often on things that 
may happen thousands of miles away — which determine the 
power of purchase of their customers. They have got no 
measure at hand at all by which they can even approxi- 
mately estimate the actual effective demand of consumers, 
or ascertain the producing capacity of their rivals. In other 
words, private enterprise is a defiance of nature's law which 
decrees that the interests of society are interdependent." 



1 04 MODERN SO CIA LISM. 

"Just take a bird's-eye view of the way private enter- 
prise manages affairs. Observe how every manufacturer, 
every merchant, strives in every possible way — by glaring 
advertisements, by under-selling others, by giving long 
credits, by sending out an army of drummers — to beat his 
rivals. . . . Let us suppose the season a favorable one ; all 
of them receive orders in greater number than they expected. 
These orders stimulate each one of the manufacturers to a 
more and more enlarged production far ahead of the orders 
received, in the hope of being able to dispose of all that is 
being produced. But mark ! this production of all these 
manufactures is, and must necessarily be, absolutely plan- 
less. It depends altogether on chance and the private guess- 
work of these enterprising individuals, who are all guess- 
ing entirely in the dark To a thoughtful observer 

nothing will seem more inevitable than that this planless 
production must end in the market being at some time over- 
stocked with commodities of one kind or another; that is, 
that it must end in over-production as to those goods. In 
that branch of production prices consequently fall, wages 
come down, or a great manufacturer fails, and a smaller or 
greater number of workmen are discharged. 

"But one branch of industry depends upon another; one 
branch suffers when another is depressed. The stoppage of 
production at one point, therefore, necessarily shows itself at 
another point in the industrial network. The circle of de- 
pression thus grows larger and larger from month to month, 
failure succeeds failure, the general consumption diminishes, 
all production and commerce are paralyzed. We have got 
the crisis. To those who were all the time planning and 
working in the dark everything seemed to be going on as 
usual ; it has naturally come on them like a thunderbolt 
from a clear sky." 

" When such a crisis has lasted for years, when such sacri- 



INDUSTRIAL DEPRESSIONS AND CRISES. 105 

fice of goods and standstill of production has finally over- 
come the over-production, then the inevitable demand at 
length calls for renewed production ; and society commences 
to recover slowly, but only to repeat the old story. Pro- 
ducers want to indemnify themselves for what they have 
lost, and hope to make sufficient before another crisis comes 
on. Because all producers act in like manner, each one 
trying to outflank the other, another catastrophe is invited. 
It responds to the call, and approaches with accelerated 
strides and with more damaging effects than any of its 
predecessors." s 

Again, Mr. Alexander Jones admirably expresses these 
facts as follows: — "This commercial trade rivalry and in- 
dustrial strife is not confined to domestic manufactures, but 
the struggle is international, and nations far apart vie with 
each and all others. ... In order to gain trade and increase 
customers, manufacturers resort to every possible resource. 
New machinery is invented and applied in order to reduce 
cost of production ; wages of workmen are reduced, in order 
to manufacture cheaper. Goods are adulterated, and quality 
is sacrificed. 

" Manufacturers no longer sell, like the old time crafts- 
man, direct to the consumer, but to large jobbers and dis- 
tributers, who transport wares to all parts of the country, and 
supply smaller dealers, traders and shopkeepers. In order 
to retain or hold the trade of these large buyers, every con- 
ceivable concession is made by rival manufacturers. They 
sell goods on long credit ; i. e. let them have manufactured 
articles on tick." 

" Immense masses of goods are produced for which there 
is not the least demand. Manufacturers must keep on turn- 
ing out goods to keep machinery and works in action ; the 
business man places orders in anticipation of new orders, 
1 Co-operative Commonwealth, pp. 35, 36. 



106 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

and in this way pays his old debts by contracting new 
ones. 

" Finally all trade becomes blockaded ; business stagnates ; 
industry languishes ; orders slow up, for stocks are abnor- 
mally large. Workmen are suspended, laid off, discharged. 
With payment of wages also suspended, they buy little, and 
pay for less. Business becomes duller. 

" Artificial incidents are added to real causes ; . . . a few 
bank failures add increasing fear to the general distrust ; 
financial conditions become shaky, . . . and lo ! suddenly 
we are startled by a spectral confrontation of an immense 
crash ! 

" As the stores are stuffed full of all kinds of goods for 
which there is no demand, there is a scarcity of orders at 
the business houses. For this reason manufacturers are 
compelled to shut down their works, or produce only half 
time. Business men cannot pay their old debts, for they 
cannot contract new ones. Banks refuse to loan money, 
some of them even burst because they have loaned out too 
much. Railroads and ships have nothing to do. Hundreds 
of thousands and millions of workmen are unemployed." 

" What is the real cause, therefore, of the crisis, the cause 
of so many workmen being unemployed ? 

" It is not the gold or silver question ; not free trade or 
tariff, etc., but solely and exclusively the fact that primarily 
in our present senseless and planless system of production ; 
in trade and commerce, there are created, in a stated period, 
more goods than can possibly be consumed, and therefrom 
results stagnation and the crash overtakes us." r 

These statements make clear the cause of industrial de- 
pressions. No man would think of applying such a method 
to his individual business. If he did, what would be the re- 
sult ? Suppose, for example, a manufacturer of wagons should 
1 Labor Library, No. 9. Issued by the Labor News Co. 



INDUSTRIAL DEPRESSIONS AND CRISES. 



107 



thus proceed. If the various departments of the factory were 
set at work without plan or concerted action, and at the end 
of the year the several parts produced were put together, 
what do you imagine would be the result? Do you think 
the wheel, top and body departments would find their pro- 
ducts equally adjusted ? To say nothing of minor subdivi- 
sions of the work, there would probably be several hundred 
more tops than bodies to match, while the wheels would be 
found insufficient to meet the requirement, etc., etc. All 
would produce without plan, each department merely guess- 
ing at what would be needed and so we would find excess 
here and shortage there. In these departments where over- 
production exists the workmen must remain idle until the 
other branches catch up, when all can again proceed. But 
if the same planless method is pursued, the same result will 
inevitably follow. Now what would you think of a man who 
conducted his business in such a haphazard manner ? And 
yet this is precisely the way our national production proceeds. 
Is it any wonder that the industrial organism frequently gets 
out of order ? The wonder is, that our industrial mechanism 
runs as well as it does. For certainly a more planless, 
chaotic, and anarchistic method could not be conceived of. 
While each producer continues to act for himself without 
any knowledge of what others are doing, demand and supply- 
can never be adjusted. In the southern states, on Jan. xst, 
1892, there was $6,500,000 worth of cotton for which there 
was no demand, simply because each man raised his crop 
independent of all the others. 

This evil is inherent in the capitalistic system, and can 
only be removed by Socialism. Professor Ely says that this 
claim of Socialism is well founded, " because crises and indus- 
trial depressions are part and parcel of the competitive sys- 
tem of industry, and would cease to affect society with the 
abolition of the competitive system." Under Socialism, 



1 08 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

therefore, commercial crises would be impossible. The evil 
would be plucked up by the roots. So long as production is 
carried on by thousands of bosses, engaged in suicidal com- 
petition, so long will they manufacture goods regardless of 
commercial demand, and the cause which leads to bank- 
ruptcy and ruin will remain untouched. 

Industry can only be regulated by socializing production. 
When all orders come into one central office the demand will 
be known, and production can proceed accordingly. The 
demand will also be ascertained by official returns furnished 
by the various departments. Any temporary deficit or sur- 
plus would be adjusted by means of the reserve stores, — the 
public warehouses. Socialism, then, would completely elim- 
inate the industrial depressions and crises, with their attend- 
ant ruin and suffering. 

We hear it frequently stated that the trust will eliminate 
the crises. This, however, is a false conception, for the trust 
would fail to check over-production. Its real mission is to 
shift the evils of the crises, by restricting production, dis- 
charging workmen, etc., from the capitalists to the laborers 
and consumers. Even international trustification would but 
divide the capitalist class into hostile camps. Suppression 
of competition on one side would leave antagonisms on the 
other, for the commodities produced by one trust would 
be needed by another. The interest of one as producer 
would be opposed to another as consumer. No ! the trust 
will not abolish the crises, but only give them a different 
form and extend their sphere. Bankruptcies would not 
disappear, but rather involve whole sets of capitalists, thus 
making the devastation greater and more lasting. So long 
as private property in the instruments of production contin- 
ues, the crisis, either periodical or permanent, is inevitable. 

Another cause, however, would render over-production cer- 
tain, even if the trust could eliminate the present chaotic 



INDUSTRIAL DEPRESSIONS AND CRISES. 109 



method. Under the wage system, the product of the pro- 
ducer is divided into two parts. One part goes to labor in 
the form of wages, the other to capitalists, landowners and 
other gentlemen at large, in the form of interest, rent and 
profits. Statistics show that these two parts are about equal. 
The laborers receive in wages only about half the values 
they create, consequently cannot buy back #//they produce. 
On the other hand, those who receive the other half get much 
more than they can consume, even with their best efforts. 
Here, then, is a cause for over-production or rather under- 
consumption, for there can be no such thing as the former 
so long as men are in need, — so long as wants are insuffi- 
ciently supplied. What is meant is that those who have the 
money do not need the goods, and that those who need the 
goods do not have the money. Under the wage system this 
condition of affairs would result, even if all the producing 
forces should act in concert, for the working people who con- 
stitute the great body of consumers can only purchase about 
half the product of their toil. Nor even that, for they re- 
ceive but about 50 per cent, of the net value of the products 
(but 53.8 per cent, of the value their labor has added to the 
raw materials). When they come to spend their wages they 
must buy at the gross value, and this cost is greatly increased 
by middlemen. Now when we take into consideration money 
spent for doctor bills, insurance, rent, pleasure, etc., it is evi- 
dent that they cannot purchase in excess of 20 per cent, of the 
values they produce. These estimates are made on manu- 
facturing industries, where wages are the highest. Taking 
the laboring class as a whole they can purchase only 15 
per cent, to 18 per cent, of the wealth they produce. This 
being true, if every industry were organized into a trust 
and all acted in perfect harmony, laborers could not be con- 
tinually employed ; for, to utilize all the economic resources, 
would mean to produce in excess of commercial demand. 



1 1 o MODERN SOCIALISM. 

It is thus that the wage system has become a social 
curse. 

Foreign markets are necessary to provide an outlet for the 
excess of production. The cry for them goes up from every 
land where modern methods are employed. The use of 
machinery has so increased the productivity of labor that, 
unless some outlet is found, production must cease at inter- 
vals until the excess is consumed. It does not cease because 
the needs of the people are all supplied, but because of the 
cessation of commercial demand. The men who labor would 
gladly consume more, but the part of the product allowed 
them for their toil will not enable them to do so, and to in- 
crease their portion would be to decrease the share of the 
non-producers. The capitalist must, therefore, look else- 
where for consumers of this surplus. A constantly expand- 
ing production requires a constantly expanding market. 
But markets have failed to expand in proportion as the 
power of production has increased. In this way markets 
become overstocked and panics ensue. These industrial 
depressions have been frequent since 1825, and now, owing 
to the multiplied power of production in all civilized nations, 
there is a chronic state of depression. The introduction of 
modern methods into foreign countries, especially into India, 
Japan, and Australia, are enabling those nations to produce 
for themselves. All such peoples will soon begin to foster 
home industries, and will cease to become customers, and 
become competitors. In fact they are already adopting our 
inventions and improvements. Truly, foreign markets are 
being closed. What will be the result? There is but one 
answer, the capitalistic system will fall. It will end in the 
bankruptcy of capitalist society, — a great cataclysm, — unless 
forestalled by the Co-operative Commonwealth. The only 
way an effectual home market can be produced, is to give 
the workingmen the full product of their toil. But this will 



INDUSTRIAL DEPRESSIONS AND CRISES. in 

mean a revolution in our industrial system. The wage sys- 
tem which has built up the capitalistic regime, will certainly 
work its overthrow. 

We have seen that the crisis is the result of our planless 
system of production, and its consequent exploitation of 
labor. When this exploitation ceases and labor receives the 
full value it creates, the cause of panics wall be removed. 
Labor will exchange for labor, value for value. At present, 
as we have seen, the laborer receives but about one-half of 
the net values he creates, and but about one-fourth of the 
gross values. The value of manufactured products, accord- 
ing to the United States Statistics of 1890, amounted to 
$9,372,000,000, and the total wages paid were $2,171,000,000, 
or about 23 per cent, of the product. 1 Of course, if laborers 
receive less than one-fourth of the value of the products they 
cannot buy all that is produced. In other words, as they re- 
ceive but one dollar of every four dollars worth of wealth pro- 
duced, they will be unable to purchase but one quarter of the 
total product. And not even that, for fully one-sixth of their 
wages goes for rent. This, together with the other inci- 
dentals, already mentioned, and the fact that they must buy 
at retail prices, further reduces their purchasing power. 
When over-production or under-consumption is the very 
essence of the profit system, is it any wonder that we have 
industrial depressions and business stagnation, culminating 
in panics? 

One of the most important features in the report of the 
Commissioner of Labor already referred to, is the alleged 
causes of industrial depressions which have been gathered 
by Congressional Committees and Agents of the Bureau 
appointed for the purpose. Several hundred causes are 
enumerated among which are speculation, unsatisfactory 
financial conditions of the country, inflation of the currency, 
1 See A 7 ew York World, Sept. 30th, 1896. 



1 1 2 MODERN SO CIALISM. 

over-trading, extension of credits, the tariff, monopoly, over- 
production, the banking system, fall in prices, introduction 
of machinery, etc., etc. All of these alleged causes are seen 
in the light of the foregoing to be of the nature of results, or 
at most but secondary causes. The real cause underlies 
them all. Thus speculation, extension of credit resulting in 
failures, over-production, fall in prices, all can be traced to 
the industrial system itself, — the methods of private busi- 
ness, the industrial anarchy, and the planlessness of the 
present system of production, coupled with its inherent ex- 
ploitation of labor. Many people mistake the occasion for 
the cause. These conditions which have been mentioned 
may lead to, but they are not the cause of, business depres- 
sions ; some may be effective in precipitating a crash, but 
none are moving factors. When the industrial organism 
becomes thoroughly permeated with disease, it requires but 
a little factor to precipitate a collapse. Do not be deceived 
by the demagogue's cry of money panics. The part that 
money plays in such depressions is merely the lack of money 
in the right pockets. Increase the circulating medium to 
fifty dollars per capita, and unless enough of it is paid labor 
to enable the producers to purchase the full value of their 
products, the markets will become glutted and business de- 
pressions ensue. All panaceas that leave the profit system 
untouched are futile. They do not go to the root of the 
evil. The only remedy is the abolition of production for 
sale and profit. 

While over-production might ensue under any system, it 
could be productive of no evil were production carried on for 
the satisfaction of wants. The farmer is not injured by pro- 
ducing more corn than he needs for his own use ; he stores 
the surplus against poorer harvests. So if society should 
produce more than its members could possibly consume after 
the wants of all are fully satisfied it would not in any way be 



INDUSTRIAL DEPRESSIONS AND CRISES. 



11 3 



disadvantageous. But when, as to-day, production is carried 
on for sale, to exceed the commercial demand is to be con- 
fronted by congestion of products which compels cessation 
of industrial activity, enforced idleness, and cutting off the 
consumptive power of labor with its concomitant of want and 
misery. 

Socialism has correctly diagnosed the social malady and 
prescribes the true remedy. Professor Toynbee, in speaking 
of the social revolution, says, "Another direct consequent of 
this expansion of trade was the regular recurrence of periods 
of over-production and of depression, a phenomenon quite 
unknown under the old system, and due to this new form of 
production on a large scale for a distant market." l Over- 
production and industrial depression, then, are the result 
of modern industrial methods. The phenomenon made its 
appearance with production for sale, and has grown in sever- 
ity as capitalism has developed. The root of the evil is inhe- 
rent in the capitalistic system of production and can only be 
removed by Socialism. 

1 The Industrial Revolution, Toynbee, p. 91. 
8 



1 1 4 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

CHAPTER XII. 

THE CONDITION OF LABOR, PAST AND PRESENT — COMPARISON. 

There have been many misconceptions concerning the 
condition of labor to-day as compared with the past. The 
defenders of the present order are quite prone to sweeping 
statements, but a careful examination of the facts show one 
that workingmen have not steadily improved in their con- 
dition, nor has poverty always increased with progress. 
Statistics, as all know, are often compiled to make out a 
case. Mr. Rae, for instance, to substantiate his position 
that labor has never been so well off as to-day, quoted 
Gregory King and S. Matthew Hale in support of his theory. 
In other words, he picked out facts that are favorable to his 
position and omitted the others. 

We have but to glance at the charts given by Mr. Bliss, 
the editor, in the abridged Work and Wages by Thorold 
Rogers, M. P., late Professor of Political Economy in the 
University of Oxford, to be assured that labor has not 
steadily gained or retrograded during the last six centuries. 
Like everything else, labor has had its ups and downs. 
"Those who comfort themselves," says Mr. Bliss, "and 
sometimes excuse their comfort, by asserting that however 
badly off the workingman is to-day, he is at least better off 
than ever before, have no justification in history for their 
content." " As we look at the curves of the charts in their 
successive peaks and valleys, we see how easily partialists 
and special pleaders can prove their position by a careful 
selection of their data. Thus, the great fall in English 
wages in the last quarter of the sixteenth century, due to 
1 Work and Wages, Humboldt Edition, p. 148. 



THE CONDITION OF LABOR, PAST AND PRESENT. 115 



the monopolization of the land, brought the wages of the 
seventeenth century to a low level, but not to so degraded a 
condition as was reached in the latter half of the eighteenth 
century and the first quarter of the nineteenth, due to the 
monopolization of machinery. Since that time, labor has 
partly retrieved its loss, so to-day the condition of the work- 
ingmen is superior to that of the laborers of the first half 
of the seventeenth century, to which Mr. Rae's authorities 
refer. However, labor is as yet far from regaining its 
golden age, — the fifteenth century. Says Professor Rogers, 
" I have stated more than once that the fifteenth century 
and the first quarter of the sixteenth were the golden age of 
the English laborer, if we are to interpret the wages which he 
earned by the cost of the necessities of life. At no time 
w r ere wages, relatively speaking, so high, and at no time 
was food so cheap. . . . Relatively speaking [then], the wor.k- 
ingman of to-day is not so well off as he was in the fifteenth 
century." l Indeed, the fifteenth century was the golden 
age of English labor. Agricultural labor received twice, 
and skilled labor three times as much as it does to-day, and 
eight hours, Professor Rogers informs us, constituted a day's 
work. Let it be remembered that the relative condition of 
wages is always based upon their purchasing power. The 
wages of the artisan in the fifteenth century would be 
equal, to-day, to nearly $4.00, and that of the agricultural 
laborer to nearly $3.00. The average labor wage placed at 
$3.00 would be a liberal estimate. 2 

Along with this golden period may be contrasted the era of 
pauperism. Says Professor Rogers, " I am convinced that 
at no period of English history for which authentic records 
exist, was the condition of manual labor worse than it was 
in the forty years from 1782 to 1821, the period in which 

1 Work and Wages, pp. 73, 90. 

2 See charts by Mr. Bliss already referred to. 



1 16 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

manufacturers and merchants accumulated fortunes rapidly, 
and in which the rent of agricultural land was doubled" 
(p. no). The average wage for this period was less than $1.00 
and the length of the working day from twelve to sixteen 
hours. At last, in 1824, relief came in the repeal of the ob- 
noxious laws, that for five centuries had been directed against 
workmen, denying them the right to combine for their own 
protection. These laws for the first two centuries, we are 
informed, were a failure, but for three centuries they were a 
complete success. This act was repealed in 1815, but little 
progress was made until after 1830. Since then many acts 
of legislation have helped the progress of the laborers, es- 
pecially the artisan, who by combination has been able to 
secure advantages in the sale of his labor. Although the 
workingmen have improved their condition, they have not 
regained the " Merrie England " of the fifteenth cen- 
tury. 

The inquiry may arise, as to the cause of this degradation 
from which labor has but partially recovered. I have already 
mentioned the chief cause, the monopolization of the land. 
But there were other reasons, such as the issue of the de- 
based currency by Henry VIII. in 1543, and his confiscation 
of the property of the guilds. Also Elizabeth's act of restrain- 
ing wages by fixing seven years as a necessary apprentice- 
ship, and the empowering of the justices to fix all rates of 
wages. This latter, however, was nothing more than what 
had been previously enacted but was inoperative, and would 
have remained so had not the workingmen been weakened by 
the other causes mentioned. Says Professor Rogers, " I con- 
tend that from 1563 to 1824, a conspiracy, concocted by the 
law and carried out by parties interested in its success, was 
entered into, to cheat the English workman of his wages. 
. . . For more than two centuries and a half, the English law, 
and those who administered the law, were engaged in grinding 



THE CONDITION OF LABOR, PAST AND PRESENT 117 

the English workman down to the lowest pittance, in stamp- 
ing out every expression or act which indicated any organized 
discontent, and in multiplying penalties upon him when he 
thought of his natural rights" (p. %$>). These derogatory 
acts, baneful as they were, would not have engulfed the work- 
ingman, could he still have had access to the land. Aland- 
less man was an outlaw. Every man had a little land for use, 
and so long as he paid his tax, in the way of feudal service, 
his tenure was secure. Of course, theoretically, all land be- 
longed to the King, and he alloted it out to Barons, and 
they in turn sub-let it to their fellows. Rent in the econ- 
omic sense did not exist. What they rendered for the use 
of the land was merely a tax. The land was in effect nation- 
alized, and this was the one chief cause of prosperity. But 
this prosperity was thwarted by the Barons, who gradually 
stole the land. They had held it heretofore for use, but now 
they began to claim it in possession. They enclosed the com- 
mon fields for pasturage, evicted the peasantry, and turned 
the land into sheep walks. As long as they paid large sums 
to the King, he did not care how they treated the peasants. 
Gradually there arose English landlordism, and rack-rent ap- 
peared as the product of the sixteenth century. This re- 
sulted in the condition of labor to-day, — nobles on the one 
hand, slave workers on the other. 

It is an advantage to those who wish to show that labor 
is now better off than ever before, to assume that history 
began with this century. They also hope to gain in the 
further assumption that machinery has been of benefit to 
the laborers. But to determine whether laborers have been 
benefited by the introduction of machinery, we must not 
compare different periods of machine production, but this 
period as a whole, with that of handicraft. Such comparison 
evidences that laborers were better off, in many ways, before 
the conspiracy than they are to-day. But it is said, " The 



1 18 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

laborers have many comforts to-day that they did not pos- 
sess four hundred years ago." True, but what of it? You 
might as well compare the laborer to-day with the South 
African, who is in no need of a coat or pair of shoes. Re- 
member, the laborers of that time were in no need of many 
things which are to-day necessities. But, for the things that 
are needful, it requires more labor to acquire them to-day, 
than in the despised middle ages. Says Hallam, " The 
laborer is much inferior in ability to support a family than 
were his ancestors four centuries ago." The savage in warm 
climates needs but few clothes, but the tramp in northern 
temperatures must have covering of some kind or perish. 
Would it be argued that because the tramp wears a pair of 
shoes in the depths of winter, that he is really better off than 
the savage ? — Assuredly not. The savage may have none 
of these things and still his needs be fully met. The nobles 
of the middle ages did not have many of the advantages 
that are to-day possessed even by the common laborers, but 
would you argue that on this account they w r ere poorer off? 
" The fact that the city beggar may now enjoy many more 
things than the backwoods farmer does not prove the beggar 
better off than the farmer." Tramps wear shoes and clothes 
that kings and princes of former ages might envy. But does 
this prove that tramps are better off than former rulers? 
"A man's poverty," says Rodbertus, as paraphrased by 
Professor Ely, " does not depend so much upon what he has 
absolutely as upon the relation in which his possessions 
stand to those of others about him, and upon the extent to 
which they allow him to share in the progress of the age. 
A cannibal in the Sandwich Islands is not poor because he 
has no coat; an Englishman is. When the vast majority 
were unable to read, a man was not poor or oppressed be- 
cause he was unable to purchase books, but a German who 
to-day has not the means to do so is both poor and op- 



THE CONDITION OF LABOR, PAST AND PRESENT. 119 

pressed." x That workingmen have more than formerly 
simply shows that conditions have changed. Civilization 
has increased wants, and industrial progress has multiplied 
the necessities of life. If these wants increase faster than 
the means of satisfying them, poverty presents itself. A 
man who to-day has much may be poorer than his ancestor 
who had little. Many to-day are pauperized for the lack of 
things of w T hich their forefathers never dreamed. All of 
this shows that poverty is something relative, not absolute. 
Laborers, of course, are in many ways absolutely better off 
than formerly, but it is this " unequal rates of progress," 
that is hostile to the spirit of Democracy and of Christianity. 
It is not the absolute condition of which Socialists complain, 
so much as the relative. In fact, the whole question, as we 
have seen, is relative. 

Socialists claim that the gulf between the social classes is 
widening, that class distinctions are constantly growing, and 
that present industrial methods instead of equalizing rates of 
progress between social classes, tends only to widen them. 
It is not absolute but relative conditions that threaten society. 
Right and social justice demand that these ever-increas- 
ing inequalities shall cease. Poverty is a relative term and 
can be determined only by comparison of the social condi- 
tions. I have dwelt upon this somewhat at length because 
of the fallacy of many well-meaning and intelligent people, 
who assume that because wages have absolutely increased, 
and laborers been benefited by the progress of social evolu- 
tion that, therefore, there is no ground for complaint. Such 
persons look at but one phase of the situation. It is not, 
whether laborers are better off then formerly from an abso- 
lute standpoint, but whether they can as easily provide the 
necessities of life thrust upon them by modern conditions. 
If it requires more effort to meet the needs and requirements 
1 Quoted by Sprague in Socialism from Genesis to Revelation, p. 113 



1 2 o MODERN SO CIALISM. 

of to-day than formerly, then the laborer's condition has not 
improved. The bare subsistence of to-day means more 
than the bare subsistence of fifty or seventy-five years ago. 
Even the lowest classes to-day cannot subsist on mere phys- 
ical necessities; they have intellectual and social natures, 
which have certain requirements. It is beyond dispute, it 
seems to me, that the unskilled laborer cannot provide for 
his family in those things deemed necessary for reputable 
citizenship, as easily as the laborer of a century ago. 

The workers of former periods were more independent 
than those of the present. All talk about freedom of con- 
tract under our present conditions is illusive. When a man 
goes to our great corporations to seek employment he has 
absolutely nothing to say. The work, wages, and time of 
labor are all fixed, and he must comply or seek employment 
elsewhere, only to find himself confronted by similar condi- 
tions. He must finally accept them or starve. To talk to 
such a man about freedom of contract is ludicrous. This 
freedom of contract belongs to a past era of production, and 
those who still prate about its glories, have entirely failed to 
grasp the meaning or conditions of modern industry. Com- 
petition, freedom of contract, and private initiative are fast 
becoming relics of an antiquated age ; they have been nega- 
tived by the modern method of production. However essen- 
tial they were in the era of small industry, they are fast 
being eliminated in this period of larger things. Monopoly 
has made the operation of these principles impossible. The 
degradation of labor is synonymous with its dependence. 
As the process of concentration goes on, and the remaining 
middle class is dispossessed, thus swelling the ranks of the 
already large number of proletarians, they will become more 
and more dependent, for an ever increasing number are 
losing control over the means of employment. Thus the 



THE CONDITION OF LABOR, PAST AND PRESENT. 121 

rich are growing richer and the poor relatively poorer and 
more dependent. 

There is no remedy for this condition under the present 
system. So long as capitalism continues, labor will be ex- 
ploited. Capitalist society is based upon the desire to live 
off the labor of others. Slavery consists in obtaining the 
fruits of others' toil without rendering an equivalent. Profit, 
interest, and rent constitute a condition of slavery, and could 
not exist were not men compelled by their necessities to sub- 
mit to the extortion. Slavery has been abolished in name, 
but it still exists in all its horrors. There can be no profit, 
interest, or rent, save when men are not paid for their labor. 

Combinations of workmen may succeed in forcing wages 
up, but they can never secure the full product of their toil, 
for as soon as wages rose to the point where it would be 
unprofitable for the capitalist to continue his business, he 
would cease operations. The capitalist purchases labor power 
in prospect of this surplus. If laborers were to receive the 
full value of their labor the capitalist could make nothing in 
the transaction. The capitalist system, then, means the ex- 
ploitation of labor, and however high wages may rise, it can- 
not do away with this feature, without abolishing the system 
itself. 

We frequently hear the claim that laborers are better off 
than formerly, — that is, that they are not fleeced quite as 
much and therefore ought to be satisfied and contented. 
Even were this claim true, it is not valid. If a highwayman 
should agree to take but half of what he has formerly appro- 
priated, would we be justified in releasing him, with the 
understanding that in the future he must return to his victim 
half of what he has compelled him to give up ? 

Wages will be found to swing between certain limits. 
They cannot rise above the point where it wall be unprofit- 
able for the capitalist to purchase labor and carry on his 



1 2 2 MODERN SO CIALISM. 

business, nor fall below the point necessary to keep working- 
men in a condition to work. In these days of cant and 
hypocrisy this necessity of present methods needs to be 
thoroughly understood. We have on the market altogether 
too many fake schemes for the improvement of the laborer's 
condition. None of these propose touching the root of the 
evil, but rather to refine the exploiting system and render it 
more respectable. A careful survey of the situation will 
evidence that there are tendencies at work which tend to 
reduce wages to the lowest point of subsistence. These 
forces which act to overstock the labor market are, — the ex- 
ploitation of the small agriculturist and industrialist; the in- 
troduction of women and children into industry ; the improve- 
ment in the technical arts which continually increases the pro- 
ductivity of labor ; the introduction of labor-saving machinery 
which displace workmen, and the importation of large masses 
of labor from foreign countries. All of these forces result 
in depreciating the price of labor power, by increasing the 
labor supply. Thus we have to-day a permanent industrial 
reserve army from which the capitalist may draw. 

The individual proletarian can only hope for redemption 
through the redemption of his class. The emancipation of 
the proletarian class will not be accomplished as in the social 
revolutions of the past, when class superseded class. When 
the capitalist supplanted the feudal lord, he inaugurated 
a new method of exploitation. But the redemption of the 
proletarian will mean the redemption of all classes, by the 
abolition of all the methods of exploitation, and the deliver- 
ance of society itself from the bondage of corruption into 
the glorious liberty of the children of God. 



CAPITALISM AXD ECONOMIC WASTE. 



I2 3 



CHAPTER XIII. 

CAPITALISM AND ECONOMIC WASTE. 

One of the strongest claims for a scientific organization of 
industrial society is that it would suppress wasteful compe- 
tition. None will deny that capitalism is responsible for 
prodigious economic waste. Competition and waste are 
convertible terms. 

Let us consider some of the economies that would result 
from the elimination of this factor in modern industry. We. 
will begin with the railways. The waste here is truly enor- 
mous. It has been estimated that the public ownership of 
railways would annually save the people of the United States 
over seven hundred millions of dollars, an amount sufficient 
to construct homes for three million and five hundred thou- 
sand persons, allowing a thousand dollars to a dwelling for a 
family of five persons. 1 

Next, consider the telegraph business. The Western 
Union, which has swallowed up most of the companies of a 
generation ago, is capitalized at $100,000,000. Now deduct 
from this $20,000,000, which it is estimated would be suffi- 
cient to duplicate the plant, and we have a loss of $80,000,- 
000. " This, however/' says Professor Ely, " is but a fractional 
part of the total loss, because we must take into account the 
needless expense involved in operating the plants which have 
been ultimately absorbed. No one can tell what the total 
loss is, but certainly $100,000,000 is an under-estimate." 

Gas works also show the evils of competition. Take Bal- 
timore as an example. There have existed at one time and 
another five or six gas companies in that city, which after a 

a For estimates see the author's National Ownership of Railways, 



124 



MODERN SOCIALISM. 



gas war have consolidated with the old company. The one 
company now exists with a capital, including bonds, of $18,- 
000,000. The difference between this capitalization and the 
sum it would cost to duplicate the plant is $13,000,000. 
Even allowing that the plant cost $8,000,000, there would 
still be a waste in this one city of $10,000, 000. z That which 
is true of Baltimore is true of most of our large cities. Rival 
gas companies always consolidate and competition is always 
wasteful. 

The milk business is another example of waste due to 
competition. Look at the number of companies engaged in 
supplying milk in any city, and compare the distribution of 
milk with the distribution of mail. Let us suppose that the 
mail of a city was all dumped in a heap and each carrier 
should take what he could easily carry and start out for dis- 
tribution. Is it not evident that it would take a much larger 
force to do the work than is now required ? Each carrier 
would have to run all over the city and a dozen would tra- 
verse each street. Think of the waste implied in our present 
planless distribution of milk ! Three or four times as many 
wagons, horses, and men are required as would suffice if the 
business were properly organized, as is the mail service. 

So with the stores. See the waste of labor power in this 
field. In every town of any size, there are numbers of 
useless stores. Who supports these ? The community, of 
course. But why should society be so wasteful ? Is it less 
insane for society to support ten stores when but two are 
necessary, than for a man to employ ten clerks when two are 
sufficient ? Reflect for a moment on the vast number of 
needless stores in the country, with their thousands of 
proprietors, thousands of needless clerks, and thousands 
of buildings, all uselessly maintained by productive labor. 



1 Socialism and Social Reform, Ely, p. 121. 



CAPITALISM AND ECONOMIC WASTE. 



i 2 S 



Socialism would turn this vast army into productive employ- 
ment. 

That which has been said of needless stores is also true of 
manufactories. If competition were destroyed, production 
could be carried on with at least a third of the present 
economic expenditure. 

In this connection, let us note the waste in advertising 
which is due to industrial conflict. One man spends five 
hundred dollars and his neighbor has to do the same in order 
to keep his business. Next year the first man lays out one 
thousand dollars in advertising and his competitor goes 
beyond him, and so the struggle continues. The expendi- 
ture in advertising increases with the fierceness of competi-- 
tion. Mr. Magnusson, a careful student who has investigated 
the subject, estimates the expense of advertising in this 
country at five hundred millions of dollars a year. Of course 
all of this is not total loss ; only that portion of capital and 
labor which is used up and leaves behind no real utility can 
be so considered. If a hundred dollars passes from one to 
another, society is neither richer nor poorer. But if labor or 
capital is consumed to no purpose, society loses. Energy 
which might have been utilized for profit and rendered 
productive has been wasted. Says Robert Blatchford : — 
" There are draughtsmen, paper-hangers, printers, bill-posters, 
painters, carpenters, gilders, mechanics and a perfect 
army of other people all employed in making advertisement 
bills, pictures, hoardings, and other abominations — for what? 

" To enable one soap or patent medicine dealer to secure 
more orders than his rival. I believe I am well within the 
mark when I say that some firms spend $500,000 a year in 
advertisements. " x 

Advertising is certainly expensive. A proposed ordinance 
in Boston to prohibit the distribution of bills on the streets 

1 Merrie England, Blatchford, p. 45. 



126 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

was opposed by the printers and paper dealers on the ground 
that it meant a loss to them of five hundred thousand dollars. 1 
All of this is needless and wasteful. Society is in no way 
benefited thereby but rather injured, for it corrupts the press 
and engenders unwholesome rivalry. In fact, most advertise- 
ments are repulsive to the refined instinct. But all this is 
necessitated by capitalism and competition. 

Another tremendous waste closely connected with this is 
the needless drummer. " Careful estimates from a variety 
of reliable sources," says Edward Sanborn, " place the 
number of commercial travellers in this country at 250,000." 
He then figures out their expenses, salaries, etc., and esti- 
mates the total at nine hundred and ninety-seven millions and 
five hundred thousand dollars ($997,500,000). This vast 
sum is expended annually to maintain the institution of drum- 
ming, all of which is wasted. The profession adds nothing to 
the aggregate product of the country, and it does not in the 
long run affect consumption. Goods would have to be 
bought and consumed, drummers or no drummers. Capital- 
ism necessitates this colossal waste ; Socialism would pre- 
vent it. 

Enforced idleness is another form of waste inherent in the 
present system. Statistics show that wage-workers engaged 
in manufacturing industries are idle one-tenth of the work- 
ing days of the year. This means a loss to each wage-worker 
of some thirty to forty dollars annually. This enforced idle- 
ness of one-tenth of the working time would be equivalent 
to nearly two millions idle the whole year through. As one 
man creates annually nine hundred dollars worth of wealth, 
the two thousand idle men mean a loss to society of one 
billion and eight hundred millions dollars ($1,800,000,000). 
Now add to this the one million absolutely idle and we have 
an enormous waste of nearly three billions of dollars a year. 

1 Socialism f 7' om Genesis to Revelation, Sprague, p. 289. 



CAPITALISM AND ECONOMIC WASTE. 127 

This is in industrial labor alone. If we include the enforced 
idleness in agriculture and mining we have an enormous 
sum. For all this economic waste the present order is 
strictly responsible. It is a warfare without method, system, 
or a single unifying principle. Socialism would eliminate 
this waste by removing the cause. All labor would be sys- 
tematically organized and the productive forces utilized to 
the fullest capacity. 

Closely connected with this permanent waste is the waste 
from commercial crises. This is appalling. Our recent 
experience renders it unnecessary of explanation. That 
such crises would be impossible under Socialism is admitted 
by all. Consequently the financial ruin involving untold 
suffering and economic waste would be prevented. Private 
enterprise, with its rivalry, secrecy, ignorance of what others 
are doing, and its risks, would be supplanted by concerted 
action which would enable society to adapt the supply to 
the demand and so adjust and regulate production that the 
crisis — the result of planlessness and social anarchy — would 
be a thing of the past. Professor Ely, speaking of this claim of 
Socialism, says : — " This claim is well founded, because crises 
and industrial depressions are part and parcel of the com- 
petitive system of industry, and would cease to affect society 
with the abolition of the competitive system. Perhaps we 
here touch upon that loss which is chief among all those due 
to a competitive industrial order, and it may be that a de- 
scription of the evils incident to crises and industrial depres- 
sions is as severe an indictment of present society as can be 
brought against it. The losses in a single year of industrial 
crises, and consequent industrial stagnation, amount to 
hundreds of millions of dollars, and involve untold misery 
to millions of human beings. Capital is idle ; labor is unem- 
ployed ; the production of wealth ceases ; want and even starv- 
ation come to thousands ; marriages decrease ; separations, 



128 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

divorces, and prostitution increase in alarming proportions ; 
and all this happens because the machinery of the industrial 
system has been thrown out of gear by the operation of 
some force or another, which, so far as we can judge from 
experience, is an essential part of the order of competition." * 

Another needless waste is litigation. The present system 
is responsible for the large expenditure of time and money 
in this direction, for the chief cause of litigation is private 
contract. It is claimed that nine-tenths of this expenditure 
would be saved under Socialism. There are in the United 
States seventy thousand lawyers. Add to this the cost of 
court-houses, furnishings, salaries of clerks, etc., and it 
aggregates a gigantic amount. Socialists do not claim that 
there would be no litigation under the new order, but they 
assert that with the abolition of private capital nine-tenths 
would disappear and consequently the waste involved would 
be saved. 

The new order would also render needless a large per 
cent, of police and prisons. A large amount of crime is 
against property, and such, of course, would cease with the 
abolition of private capital and contract. 

Another factor that might be mentioned is the waste from 
strikes and lockouts. The number of strikes, according to 
official reports, from January ist, 1881, to June 30th, 1894, 
was 14,389. The establishments involved were 69,166, and 
employees thrown out of work were 3,714,231. The wage 
loss of these employees amounted to $163,807,657. The 
assistance rendered them by labor organizations was $10,- 
914,406. The total loss to employees aggregated $82,589,786. 

The number of establishments involved in lockouts during 
this period was 6,067. The wage loss to employees amounted 
to $26,685,516. The assistance rendered by labor organiza- 

1 Socialism and Social Reform, Ely, pp. 127, 128. 



CAPITALISM AND ECONOMIC WASTE. 129 

tions was $2,524,298 and the total loss to wage-workers 
amounted to $12,235,451. 

Even in New York City for this period there were 2,614 
strikes, involving 6,467 establishments and throwing 215,649 
workmen out of employment, with a wage loss of $6,449,385 
and a loss to the employers of $3,545,766. 

During the first six months of 1894 the number of strikes 
in the United States was 896, with a loss to employees of 
$28,238,471 and to employers of $15,557, 166. x 

In all these strikes and lockouts the loss affects not only 
the individuals directly concerned but society as a whole. 
None will deny that this economic waste is due directly to 
capitalism. Neither can it be denied that under Socialism 
this evil would be abolished. 

Another economic loss is due to adulterations. This, 
Socialism would remedy by removing the motive for such 
frauds. The real incentive to fraudulent adulterations is 
private gain. This would be impossible under Socialism. 
The waste here is enormous. 

The economic waste due to the liquor traffic is also enor- 
mous. A large proportion of this would be saved by Social- 
ism, inasmuch as it would eliminate private gain. Much of 
the stimulus to this business is the fact that there is money 
in it. Remove this incentive and the evil would largely dis- 
appear. The annual liquor bill of this country is over one 
billion of dollars. In 1889 we consumed 91,133,550 gallons 
of distilled liquors, and 778,715,443 gallons of fermented 
liquors, a total of 869,848,993 gallons. So long as capital- 
ism continues with its incentive to men to engage in the 
traffic for private gain, there is no hope of checking this 
evil. The first step toward reformation is to eliminate 
private gain by socializing the traffic. 

1 For full statistics, see Tenth Annual Report of the Commissioner of 
Labor, vol. 1. 

9 



i3° 



MODERN SOCIALISM. 



Needless charity is another waste which can be traced 
directly to the present order. Millions upon millions of 
dollars are dispersed every year in charity to alleviate the 
evils which result from our cut-throat system of competition. 
The main causes of the pauperism that calls for charity are 
intemperance, illiteracy and over-crowding. Illiteracy is in- 
creased because of the economic interest of capitalists in 
employing children to work who ought to be in school. 
Over-crowding is due principally to our present system of 
landlordism. These causes Socialism would remove. So- 
cialism by removing pauperism, would render unnecessary 
nine-tenths of the present charity. Think of the millions 
thus saved to society ! 

Other serious causes of waste are inefficiency of labor, 
indifference, and want of adaptation. A large proportion of 
laborers have no choice of their employment. They are 
obliged to take what they can get whether adapted to it or 
not. Inefficiency and waste are the result. Under Socialism 
the State would render assistance to all, thus enabling each 
to secure the work to which he is best suited. Industrial 
education would be as carefully looked after as intellectual 
education. Thus all would be enabled to choose the em- 
ployment to which they are adapted. The savings thus 
effected would be truly enormous. 

Again, Socialism would save the tremendous expenditures 
in banking and insurance. These institutions, so neces- 
sary and imperative to the present order, would be rendered 
inoperative under Socialism. Thus the vast capital and 
army of men engaged in these businesses would be con- 
verted into producers. They now in no way contribute to 
the productive power of society. Under Socialism where 
the State provides for widows and children, life insurance 
would be rendered unnecessary. All fear would be re- 
moved, for no one would be left destitute and helpless in old 



CAPITALISM AND ECONOMIC WASTE. 131 

age. As stated by Robert Blatchford, " Socialism is the 
finest scheme of insurance ever devised." 

Many other sources of economic waste might be men- 
tioned. Think of the useless cashiers, clerks, bookkeepers, 
salesmen, accountants, agents and canvassers employed in 
any one trade. The commercial waste in this respect is 
appalling. Again, think of the ignorance, unskilfulness, 
luxury, useless duplications, misdirected effort, unnecessary 
superintendence, pernicious activities, etc., etc. The amount 
of waste involved in these items are beyond computation. 

The total loss from all sources would equal, according to 
Professor Parsons, more than three-fourths of the forces en- 
gaged in our industries. That is, five million workers under a 
true co-operative system would produce the present annual 
national product of $20,000,000,000. Add to this the labor 
of twenty-five millions more, if all were employed, and the 
total net product would be $120,000,000,000 per annum, 
or $4;Ooo dollars per worker each year. 1 Capitalism, as we 
have seen, is the cause of these prodigious wastes. 

That any one should desire the preservation of an eco- 
nomic order which necessitates such prodigious waste is be- 
yond comprehension. Certainly a more irrational and ab- 
surd system could not be conceived. Capitalism and waste 
are synonymous. May the day hasten when this industrial 
cannibalism (capitalism), will be relegated into the limbo of 
forgotten creeds. 

1 Philosophy of Mutualism, Parsons, p. 6. 



132 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

CHAPTER XIV. 

MISCONCEPTIONS AND OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 

The misconception of, and the objections to, Socialism 
are closely connected, inasmuch as the latter are mainly 
based upon the former. These two are so intimately as- 
sociated that consideration of one necessitates an examina- 
tion of the other. 

1. — As to Equality. 

How often it is said that Socialism proposes to divide all 
property equally among the people, and then we are admon- 
ished that were such action to be taken to day, to-morrow 
the same old inequalities would reappear. Again we are in- 
formed that even if such division should be made, the share 
of each individual would be very small. 

It is difficult to take this misconception in all seriousness. 
If honestly made it displays such gross ignorance as to be 
hardly excusable. It certainly savors very much of inten- 
tional misunderstanding, of calumniation and a desire to mis- 
represent the Socialist position. Any one with the least ac- 
quaintance with Socialist literature knows that no trace of 
any such idea is to be found in any of the Socialist writings. 
That which Socialism proposes is not the periodical redivi- 
sion of property, but the collective ownership of capital, un- 
der which rtgime the reappearance of the old inequalities 
would be rendered impossible. Let it be clearly compre- 
hended that Socialism has in store no "grand divide." 

2. — As to Property. 

Socialism does not propose the common ownership of all 
property. It is only the instruments of production that are 



MISCONCEPTIONS AND OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED, 133 

to be socialized. All wealth not designed for use in produc- 
tion can, under Socialism, be owned as private property the 
same as now. Socialism only designs the abolition of the 
receipt of private interest and rent. It would only abolish 
private property in so far as its possession enables one to 
secure an income without personal exertion by mere laying 
of tribute upon the labors of others. 

Socialism emphasizes the necessity of private property 
for the full development of our natures and for personal free- 
dom. It claims that the present system is deficient here, 
and proposes such an organization of industry as shall secure 
to all such an increase of property in annual income as will 
suffice to satisfy all needs and render man independent. All 
private interest and rent, being but the remuneration of pri- 
vate ownership of land and capital, will disappear. But the 
suppression of private property, and the unceremonious level- 
ling of all private possessions, forms no part of the socialistic 
programme. Let it then be distinctly understood that Social- 
ism is not the " negation of property " or the abolition of all 
private ownership. The negation only applies to capital, — 
that portion of wealth productively employed. Private prop- 
erty in wealth, the means of enjoyment, will not only be 
allowed but decidedly encouraged. Instead of depriving all 
of property it will enable all to obtain property, and place it 
upon an unimpeachable basis, — that of personal exertion. 
This wealth could be enjoyed as one saw fit, only he would 
not be allowed to use it in fleecing his fellows. I lay spe- 
cial emphasis upon this because many educated people betray 
a scandalous ignorance on the subject. 

3. — As to the Family. 

It is sometimes suggested by the retainers of capitalism, 
that Socialism is hostile to the family. This can hardly be 
called a misconception, although in charity we will list it as 



134 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

such. It shows that the advocates of the present order 
mobilize every argument, however sophistical, that can be 
utilized to excite popular prejudice against any system that 
antagonizes it. It also evidences that our friends are short 
of ammunition. 

As Socialism has to do solely with economic relations, the 
supposition is at once seen to be absurd. Socialism will, 
however, have many indirect bearings of vast importance, 
and none of more consequence than that upon woman and 
the conjugal relations. That both would be greatly elevated 
under Socialism none can doubt who are sufficiently informed 
to venture an impartial opinion. It is the Socialist who has 
called attention to the destruction of the family life due to 
present industrial methods. The present economic order is 
the direct cause of the disintegration of the family. The 
separation of father, mother and children in our great indus- 
trial centres is necessitated by the struggle for existence. 
Each must seek through his or her own efforts the neces- 
sities of life. The wage of the common laborer being insuf- 
ficient to support his family, the wife and children are 
pressed into service and the home life is destroyed. 

Our present system has built up she-towns in New Eng- 
land and he-towns in the West, besides increasing prosti- 
tution and adultery. All this would be eradicated under 
Socialism, for it would secure to the head of the family suf- 
ficient income for all the needs of his household. 

Not only would Socialism elevate the family, but it will 
also elevate woman, by placing her economically upon an 
equal footing with man. I do not mean by this that Social- 
ism will simply open the door of industrial employments to 
woman, for this is already done in most departments, and 
with the most baneful results. In those fields open to women, 
competition has been fiercer, and wages so lowered that the 
whole family now earn but the wage formerly received by 



MISCONCEPTIONS AND OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 135 

the head of the family. Such has been the result in many 
industries thrown open to the free competition of women 
with men. Socialism does not propose to increase this com- 
petition, but recognizing the physiological difference between 
the sexes, it would secure to woman the opportunity of suit- 
able employment, with reward according to results. This 
would mean the true emancipation of woman. Instead of 
being dependent as now upon man for her support she would 
be at liberty to earn her own livelihood. This does not 
imply that all women would avail themselves of this privi- 
lege, or that Socialism would encourage her in seeking this 
employment. The very fact that she has the power to earn 
her own living would have a salutary effect. It would extir- 
pate the thought of marriage as a " commercial institution, " 
and would exterminate in toto the "matrimonial market." 
Were women enabled to honestly earn their own living, they 
would not consent to marry for a pecuniary consideration, or 
for anything else but love. " The spirit of mercantilism," 
says Mr. Sprague, " has polluted the stream of love and virtue 
till the most sacred human relation is often made a matter of 
commerce." Woman no less than man must be endowed 
with economic independence in order to secure perfect free- 
dom. This does not mean that women whether married or 
single would as a rule earn their own livelihood, or that Social- 
ism expects such. Socialists hold that it is the husband's 
province to provide for the necessities of his family, and 
the very fact that the new order would render it easy for a 
man to support a family would encourage matrimony. 

Says Laurence Gronlund, " It will enable every healthy 
adult man and woman to marry whenever they feel so inclined, 
without present or prospective misgivings in regard to their 
support or the proper education of children. Socialists are 
charged, ignorantly or insidiously, with attempting to destroy 
the family. Why, we want to enable every man and woman 



136 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

to form a happy family." l And not only to form a happy 
family but to preserve one, for Socialism would remove the 
chief cause of divorce. Says Professor Ely, " The causes for 
divorces have been shown by the National Department of 
Labor at Washington to be largely economic. It is the pres- 
sure of economic wants in the lower middle class which is 
most fruitful of divorce." 2 Socialism by removing this pres- 
sure, would mitigate this growing evil which threatens the 
home and the perpetuity of our civilization. 

4. — As to Inheritance. 

Another misconception and consequent objection to So- 
cialism, is the thought that it denies the right of inheritance. 
The socialistic principle, however, allows just as much room 
here as the present regime. Of course there would be no 
inheritance in capital, because capital would be collective 
property, no longer to be used privately as a means of exploit- 
ation. But inheritance in wealth, the means of enjoyment, 
would be strictly regarded. This inheritance, of course, in 
its very nature would be limited, because capital would be 
no longer private property. But a man could dispose of his 
wealth, the same as to-day, as he saw fit, by donations to 
clubs and churches, or by bequest or in any other way he 

might desire. 

5. — As to State Socialism. 

State Socialism and Democratic Socialism must not be con- 
founded. The former refers to an enlargement of the func- 
tions of the present State without any radical changes, while 
the latter advocates certain alterations in the interest of 
democracy. All Socialists of to-day are democrats, believ- 
ing a government of and for the people. 

1 Co-operative Commonwealth, Gronlund, p. 226. 

2 Political Economy, Ely, p. 261. 



MISCONCEPTIONS AND OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 137 

State Socialism does not necessarily preclude class govern- 
ment even in democratic countries. It proposes that a 
government above the people shall reconcile all classes by 
giving to each its just deserts. Thus, while State Socialism 
contemplates the continuance of higher and lower classes, 
Socialism proper proposes to abolish all such, and place 
economic interests in the hands of the people to be democrat- 
ically administered. 

The basis of Democratic Socialism is not, as with State 
Socialism, mere government ownership, but the abolition 
of the wage system. Under State Socialism the wage system 
and its consequent exploitation would continue, the State 
instead of private individuals playing the role of the capi- 
talist. 

The public ownership of natural monopolies is socialistic 
(State Socialism), and a step in the direction of genuine 
Socialism. It must not be confounded, however, with Demo- 
cratic Socialism, — the co-operative ownership and manage- 
ment of the instruments of production. The public owner- 
ship of the postal-service, electric and gas supplies, water 
plants, etc., is salutary but of itself insufficient. It narrows 
the field of private enterprise and makes it easier to organize 
these businesses on a co-operative basis. This plan, how- 
ever, as a permanent social arrangement would render but 
little relief. It is, nevertheless, a great improvement over 
private control, and as a means to an end it should be en- 
couraged. Every business thus removed from private owner- 
ship lessens antagonisms and renders more easy its com- 
plete socialization. The public ownership of natural mo- 
nopolies would close these fields to private investments and 
the capital thus crowded out would seek investment in smaller 
industries which are now overlooked, and these businesses 
would be organized into trusts and prepared for socialization. 
The public ownership of natural monopolies would thus 



138 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

hasten the public ownership of all monopolies. But this of 
itself, as already said, would not suffice. To be sure, the 
economies of public ownership might be sufficient, as in Glas- 
gow, to abolish all taxation. But how would that benefit the 
proletariat class ? It is the capitalist that pays the taxes, 
and a relief here only enables him to retain the full amount 
of his exploitation. 

What Socialists demand is that the nation and munici- 
pality shall obtain possession of all railroads, telegraph and 
telephone companies, electric and gas supplies, water plants, 
etc., the employees to operate the same co-operatively under 
control of the respective national and municipal administra- 
tions, to elect their own superior officers, and no employee 
to be dismissed for political reasons. This is something 
quite different from the present State ownership, although 
the re-organization of such industries on the lines of pure 
industrial democracy would be an easy matter. State Social- 
ism, then, is a step in the direction of Democratic Socialism. 

6. — As to Publications. 

It is commonly said that if newspapers became collective 
property, it would mean the suppression of free thought. 
This objection, like others that have been examined, is due 
to a misconception. 

There would probably be published in every community 
an official journal, containing all news and matters of a 
public nature. But aside from this there will also be 
published many private journals, champions of principles, 
etc. All printing presses of course would be collective 
property, but they would be perfectly free to every one. Any 
individual or set of individuals could have anything published 
by simply defraying the cost. This would enable all to 
reach the public ear, by defraying out of their own private 
income the expense of publication. This privilege- would be 



MISCONCEPTIONS AND OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED, 139 



protected to the utmost. The bureau of printing would 
have no right to refuse to print anything decent, however 
hostile it might be to the administration, provided the cost 
of publication was guaranteed. If an editor desired to start 
a journal in advocacy of certain measures, and could secure 
subscriptions sufficient to defray the expense, he could take 
his copy to the public press and have it printed at cost, thus 
making a large saving through the economy of public print- 
ing. 

7. — As to Socialism and Slavery. 

Mr. Herbert Spencer speaks of Socialism as the coming 
slavery. This surely is based upon a decided misconception. 
He labors under the common delusion that Socialism would 
compel men to work against their will. This, however, is 
erroneous. Socialism would not compel any man to work. 
If he did not choose to labor he would not be coerced. 
Socialism would only provide the opportunity for all to work, 
and leave men perfectly free to accept or reject as they saw 
fit. Is there any slavery about this ? What Socialism would 
do, would be to prevent one man from living off the labor of 
others. It would say to him that if he wished to enjoy the 
benefits of production he must render personal service to 
the Co-operative Commonwealth. If he were capable of 
labor and did not work he would receive no part of the prod- 
uct. Paul says, " If a man will not work neither shall he 
eat." Socialism, then, instead of being, as claimed by 
Spencer, the coming slavery, would be, as claimed by Morris, 
the coming liberty. 

Another common misconception in this connection is that 
the State would dictate what each man should do. Why it 
is that the State when it furnishes employment should thus 
decree the labor, any more than the Capitalist under the 
present system, we are not informed. The Capitalist to-day 
does not decide what each man must do, he only furnishes 



140 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

the work in the various fields of industry, and each man 
chooses for himself what employment he shall follow, subject, 
of course, to the demand. All cannot be carpenters and 
masons even if they so desire. The same condition will exist 
under Socialism. Men would freely choose their lines of 
work and if possible would be supplied in accordance with 
their choice. There would be no more curtailment of liberty 
under Socialism than under the present system, nor as much, 
for Socialism would provide work for all, while now if a 
man fails to secure employment at his particular trade he 
usually remains unemployed. 

8. — As to Disagreeable Work. 

It is often alleged that under Socialism no one would per- 
form disagreeable work. 

Much of the work now regarded as disagreeable is due to 
the associations that form no essential part of it. Hoeing 
corn, for instance, would not be unpleasant with congenial 
companionship and if not continued too long. It is the 
association that renders work agreeable or disagreeable. 
But under Socialism most of the disagreeable work would be 
performed by machinery. There is no question but that 
Socialism would stimulate invention in this direction. In- 
stead of the inventive genius being aimed, as now, at increas- 
ing the earnings of capital, it would have for its purpose, 
chiefly, to make all kinds of labor as agreeable as possible. 
In many industrial fields improvements might be made to 
render the task of the toiler more pleasant, but they have 
not been simply because it would not pay. Just in propor- 
tion as men have been made valuable, machinery has taken 
their place in performing disagreeable work. Says Mrs. 
Besant : — " Much of the most disagreeable and laborious work 
might be done by machinery, as it would be now if it were 
not cheaper to exploit a helot class. When it became illegal 



MISCONCEPTIONS AND OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 141 

to send small boys up chimneys, chimneys did not cease to 
be swept : a machine was invented for sweeping them. Coal- 
cutting might now be done by machinery, instead of by a 
man lying on his back, picking away over his head at the 
imminent risk of his own life ; but the machine is much 
dearer than men, so the miners continue to have their chests 
crushed in by the falling coal. Under Socialism, men's lives 
and limbs will be more valuable than machinery ; and science 
will be tasked to substitute the one for the other." ■ The high 
value placed upon men by Socialism would certainly lead to 
vast improvements in this direction. But should there still re- 
main some work considered disagreeable it would not be 
considered fair to place it all upon some few unfortunates, 
as under the present order. Socialism, however, has amply 
provided for this contingency. It does not propose equal 
reward for all labor without regard to intensity, agreeableness, 
or health. It proposes to equalize the various vocations by 
rating the hours of labor shorter in those least desirable. 
Many would prefer a few hours even at disagreeable work, 
to a long and tiresome day at the desk. Besides, many are 
so constituted that a few hours at intellectual labor would 
wear them more than a full day of the hardest manual effort. 
Such would certainly prefer those tasks which might other- 
wise be deemed unpleasant, to even the shortest time at 
that which is commonly considered attractive employment. 
But when this is reversed and the hours of labor in those 
trades usually the least attractive are much less than the 
normal working day, there would probably be little difficulty 
in preserving the equilibrium between supply and demand. 
A little experience would adjust all such minor matters. 

Socialism, then, would not equate all kinds of labor, but 
would establish a reward based upon equity and social 

1 Fabian Essays, p. 199. 



142 



MODERN- SOCIALISM. 



justice ; a reward consonant with brotherhood and sanctioned 
by righteousness. 

9. — As to the Destruction of Liberty and Freedom. 

To the objection that Socialism would curtail or destroy 
liberty and freedom the Socialist replies that just the oppo- 
site would result, for only under Socialism can true liberty 
and freedom be attained. Socialism would not interfere 
with the individual in the disposition of his share of the 
product, nor in any way menace his liberty in the disposal 
of the large leisure which Socialism would secure him. 

John Stuart Mill thinks the objection more pertinent to 
the present system under which the large majority of 
laborers enjoy no real liberty, " have as little choice of oc- 
cupation or freedom of locomotion, are practically as de- 
pendent on fixed rules and on the will of others as they could 
be in any system short of actual slavery." Again Mill says, 
"The restraints of Communism [Socialism] would be free- 
dom, in comparison with the present condition of the major- 
ity of the human race." x 

Individual freedom consists in the opportunity to develop 
real individuality and true personal character. This iz im- 
possible where each is fighting for himself and against his 
neighbor. A true social- environment is the first requisite to 
individual development and real freedom. The acquisition 
of freedom necessitates peace, order, and organization. So- 
cialism alone furnishes the conditions for individuality and 
personal freedom. To-day we are under the greatest tyranny 
of which it is possible to conceive, — the tyranny of want. It 
is this whip of hunger that drives men to work long hours 
and in unwholesome occupations. It is here that we find 
the basis of servitude. Slavery is economic dependence on 

1 As quoted by Graham in Socialism New and Old, p. 173. 



MISCONCEPTIONS AND OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 143 

the oppressor. We require liberty not only intellectually and 
morally but economically. The first two have been recognized 
as abstract rights, but both have been practically nullified 
through the absence of the last. We must secure economic 
freedom to be assured of intellectual and moral freedom. 

Man cannot lose what he does not possess. With the 
vast majority of people freedom is not endangered. The 
man who has no work, or who must submit to wages dic- 
tated by a corporation in which he has no voice, — a wage 
which means only a bare subsistence, — need not fear the 
abrogation of his freedom. Personal liberty for such is 
already abrogated, and in many instances political liberty 
also, for the dictation of corporations in the use of the fran- 
chise is something execrable. A man thus tyrannized over 
is not free. Any man who for ten hours a day is at the beck 
and call of a master has not yet attained his emancipation. 
True freedom can only be realized in the Co-operative 
Commonwealth. 

This objection is based upon a failure to comprehend the 
changed conditions of Socialism. Servitude would be im- 
possible under a social democracy. Is there less freedom 
even in a co-operative establishment than there is in one 
with its employer and employee ? If we look at Belgium we 
will find that workmen prefer government railway shops to 
those of private corporations. We also find that in Germany 
the employees have suffered in no way from restrictions, 
since the railroads passed into governmental control. These 
facts should suffice to negative this oft-made assertion. 

The liberty that the Socialists emphasize is economic 
liberty. We want every man engaged in industry to have a 
direct voice in making the rules under which he must work, 
Nor is this all. Socialists recognize that the real restrictions 
upon liberty are economic. We are not prevented by gov- 
ernmental restrictions, but by limited resources, from doing 



! 44 MODERN SOCIALISM. 



the things we wish to do. For instance, I wish to take a 
trip to Europe. No statute prohibits me and yet I am re- 
stricted ; but the restraint is purely a lack of economic re- 
sources. 

Whether men work under the capitalistic or socialistic 
system they must work together. This concert is inherent 
in the modern order of production. What Socialism pro- 
poses is that the workers shall own the means of production 
and regulate the rules they must obey. That this would 
secure to them greater liberty within the economic sphere no 
one can doubt. But what would be of greater importance is 
the liberty that the regime would secure to all outside of this 
realm. Socialism would increase resources, decrease the 
hours of labor, and thus give leisure which men could apply 
to the development of their faculties, to recreation, and to 
travel. 

Perfect freedom of labor, of course, is impossible only in 
small production, and this only up to a certain point. This 
objection, as before stated, is just as valid when applied 
to any form of co-operative labor, — the capitalistic or the 
socialistic. Let it be remembered that large production is 
now socialistic in nature. Perfect freedom is irreconcilable 
with any planful co-operative employment. Freedom, as 
we have seen, would not be as much restrained under Social- 
ism as it is now under capitalism. No one w r ould claim that 
labor is free to-day. The industrial worker is only a link in 
the chain and is subjected to many rules and regulations. 
It is not only freedom of labor but ixee&om from labor that 
Socialism seeks. This freedom, which results from the 
common ownership of machinery, would secure to the 
laborer that leisure so much desired. Socialism would 
enable men to live as men, and secure to each the best 
opportunities for free development and movement. The 
objection that Socialism would destroy liberty either within 



MISCONCEPTIONS AND OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 145 

or without the economic sphere is wholly without founda- 
tion. 

It is sometimes said that under Socialism laborers would 
have no freedom in the choice of occupations and those 
failing to secure the most agreeable work would feel slighted. 
Although this objection has been considered, I wish to 
insert here the reply given by Mr. Sprague : — " The State 
could give shorter hours or less pay for easy and attractive 
work, and in this way, by proportioning reward to work, 
easily regulate the supply of laborers throughout the entire 
field of industry. . . . Might not Socialism help the indi- 
vidual to secure his choice of work as the present Social- 
istic highways assist the traveller on his journey, or as our 
thoroughly Socialistic school system helps each scholar to 
make the wisest choice of studies ? It is in order for our 
critics to show that because the State owns the school plants, 
the means of production and distribution of knowledge, that 
the freedom of the scholar is destroyed ; that he cannot choose 
his study ; that his individuality is lost, and that progress in 
knowledge must cease. Socialism in education is no longer 
an experiment, but a historical and glorious fact. It does 
not * choke freedom ' in the choice of studies, but furnishes 
the individual with help, the value of which cannot be over- 
estimated. What is to hinder the same result in industry ? 
... It by no means follows that because government 
supervises work the workman ' will have no choice in the 
matter.' One might with equal propriety say that because 
government supervises marriage, including all the details of 
certificates and returns, it therefore determines what woman 
a man shall marry. Freedom of choice in occupations, 
under government supervision of labor, need not be interfered 
with any more than is the present freedom of choice in mar- 
riage. A similar logic would show that the ' factory acts * 
interfere with the freedom of the manufacturer in choosing 
10 



1 46 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

the kind and quality of goods he shall produce. Would any 
say, because the government owns and supervises the high- 
ways, because it requires the traveller to turn out on a cer- 
tain side, to walk his team on a bridge, to drive through the 
street so as not to exceed a certain rate of speed, to tie his 
horse when he stops, and not to drive him at all unless the 
government regards him in a proper physical condition, that 
freedom of travel is destroyed, and that a man can no longer 
choose his destination, but the government must decide 
where every man must go ? " l 

The plea that Socialism would be destructive of liberty 
proceeds from the assumption that its government would be 
despotic. But in a social democracy where the government 
is really of and by the people, such a notion is seen to be 
absurd. It is hardly believable that the people would de- 
stroy their own liberty. Socialism would secure economic 
freedom, which is the basis of all freedom. There can be no 
liberty in economic dependence, and industrial democracy is 
the only escape from this servitude. The rulers industrially 
are the rulers politically, and only by obtaining self-govern- 
ment in industry can we obtain it in politics. Socialism 
would secure for mankind its redemption from this economic 
bondage. It would enable each industrial group to deter- 
mine its own rules and regulations, and elect its own direc- 
tors, thus securing within the economic realm freedom from 
autocratic oppression. That there would be less freedom 
outside the economic sphere no one contends. It is gener- 
ally admitted that Socialism would allow full freedom in the 
larger leisure. 

Socialism, then, so far from negativing liberty, contains 
the only hope of emancipation. True liberty and freedom 
can only be attained in the Co-operative Commonwealth. 

1 Socialism from Genesis to Revelation, Sprague, pp. 376, 38a 



MISCONCEPTIONS AND OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 147 

10. — As to Motives to Industry. 

The question is often asked, What will be a substitute 
under Socialism for competition as a force in production ? 
In the main we reply, The same as now, social esteem. Why 
does a man labor under our present industrial order ? The 
chief thing that animates him, aside from securing the neces- 
sities of life, is a desire for honor and social approbation. 
Men seek for wealth because they think that opulence will 
bring social esteem. Watch the man who has labored as- 
siduously and been parsimonious until he has amassed a 
fortune. Suddenly he purchases a fine house and gives a 
grand entertainment. Is the millionaire now moved by a dif- 
ferent motive? By no means. He was chary, and so ac- 
cumulated money because he thought that its possession 
would secure him social esteem. But he soon learned that 
mere wealth could not secure for him that which he so much 
desired. He strove to secure money that he might purchase 
applause, and failing in one direction he tries another. 
Vanity is a greater motive than mere greed. Only a miser 
loves money for its own sake. Most people seek wealth for 
what they think it will bring, — admiration and enjoyment. 
But the man who merely hoards his means does not secure 
either. These motives — the desire to excel and the eager- 
ness to win, and social approval — would become more prom- 
inent as the means of subsistence were secured. The gold- 
hunger would disappear when the daily bread is assured. 
Then these incentives which have been so long subordinated 
would rise to their proper function. Wherever a livelihood 
is secure the higher desires assert themselves. Under 
healthier conditions men would realize, what they now learn 
only by experience, that wealth is not the end of life nor the 
satisfaction of human desire. There is, even now, a greater 
motive even than money, to human faithfulness. Social 



1 48 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

esteem has been the greatest motive that has moved men in 
all ages. It was so with the ancient Greeks in their national 
games ; it is so to-day in our colleges and universities. It 
is the real motive that animates men in every department of 
life. It is at the heart of the domestic problem to-day. The 
reason American girls prefer other occupations than that of 
servants is because they think other callings carry with them 
a higher social approbation. 1 

Greed, then, is not the strongest passion in human nature. 
Men seek wealth for what it will purchase. But if admira- 
tion and enjoyment could not be secured with wealth, is it 
certain that Mammon would have so many worshippers ? To 
deprive money-grabbing of its power we must make decided 
social changes. Society must be so reconstructed that 
wealth would not bring honor, and that widows and children 
should in no case come to want. This fear of want is the 
basis of excessive accumulation. Remove this fear of want 
and men would not burden themselves with superfluities. 
No! greed is not the chief motive of life. Men will always 
do more for love, honor, or fame than they will for money. 
The very argument used against the payment of members of 
the House of Commons is that men will do more for honor 
than they will for money. It is argued that to pay members 
would be to lower the tone of Parliament. 

The chief food of genius is not wealth. Genius has 
always served the world without mercenary incentive. The 
artist is inspired by the love of his art. Did Shakespeare 
write plays for greed ? Was it competition that caused Watt 
to invent the steam-engine ? Is it greed that has produced 
such wonderful advances in science ? Was it the love of 
gain that caused Milton to write his wonderful poem ? Do 
the noblest and most clever to-day work for gain ? Let us 

1 Socialism and Social Reform, Ely, p. 228. 



MISCONCEPTIONS AND OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED, 149 

remember that virtue is its own reward. The reward of the 
artist or janitor is success. 

But under Socialism there would also be an economic 
motive for work. Then as now, if men were able they 
would have to work or starve. The State wpuld drive no 
man to work, but he would have to work in order to earn a 
living. Were work provided for all no relief would be given 
to help the adults who refuse to avail themselves of it. Men 
would work under Socialism, because they prefer work to 
starvation. Paul's rule, already cited, would then be appli- 
cable. This is a stimulus to labor which many need to-day. 
If men deliberately choose starvation through pure indo- 
lence, I dare say they would meet with but little sympathy. 
But to suppose that laziness would prevail to any great 
extent among the people would be to greatly misjudge hu- 
manity. On the contrary the very opposite would be the 
result. Under the present system the laborer's maxim is, to 
render as little labor as possible for his wages, and he is 
entirely supine in regard to his co-worker's conduct. Neither 
does he care for the waste of tools or materials, for a saving 
does not add one cent to his weekly earnings. But under co- 
operation, where the workers are co-partners, and where waste 
and neglect are not only injurious to the whole but to each 
individually, the conditions would be changed. Every 
laborer would be watchful that none shirked his duty, for 
self-interest and justice would demand that each should 
render a just labor energy for his share of the product. We 
may be assured that the man who worked faithfully, would 
not permit the sluggard to come in for an equal share of 
the product. When the laborer shall receive the full prod- 
uct of his toil and only that, it will be for the interest 
of all to be faithful, for that which they produce will be 
their share of the social product. Under Socialism, then, 
it would be for the interest of laborers to produce as much 



150 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

as possible, inasmuch as their enjoyment will depend on the 
social product. But to-day it is more to their interest to 
sterilize their productive power, for the less productive their 
labor, the more labor will be needed and the higher its 
price. 

Says Mr. Sprague : — " Inasmuch as the income and social 
well-being of every individual would depend, first, upon his 
own zeal, and second, upon the zeal of others, he would be 
doubly interested in securing the largest possible product; 
for his share of this product would measure the amount of 
necessary comforts and luxuries which he would receive. 
Each workman would, therefore, have a personal interest in 
the work of every other. A careless or lazy workman would 
receive less than the more worthy ; every one would be in- 
terested in the efficiency of labor, by which cost would be 
reduced and the social product increased. So far from im- 
pairing the motive to effort, it is easy to imagine almost any 
degree of honest pride and enthusiasm of labor when every 
workman had a personal interest in the work of every other; 
and, on the other hand, the detestation with which idleness 
and laziness would be regarded when these vices assumed 
the character of direct injury to one's fellows and of treason 
to the State." « 

It must not be inferred that because, under the present 
rigime, men are indifferent to economic results, the same 
would be true under Socialism. The conditions would be 
entirely different. To-day public functionaries have no in- 
terest at stake ; they draw their pay regardless of the quality 
of their work. Under Socialism their income would be 
bound up with the social production. Says Dr. Schaffle : — 
" Government works under the liberal capitalistic system 
are under totally different conditions from those of gov- 
ernment works under the socialistic system ; they [the 
1 Socialism from Genesis to Revelation, Sprague, p. 367. 



MISCONCEPTIONS AND OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 151 

Socialists] would point out that the workmen and overseers 
of government works to-day have of course no possible per- 
sonal interest in producing carefully and well for the State. 
The State pays them their wage whether they have worked 
well or ill. But it would be otherwise if each received more 
income the more all the rest accomplished in each and 
every department. Then to do good work for the community 
in every branch would have become in the highest degree 
the private interest of each : the control and discipline of 
labor, which is becoming under our system more and more 
impossible, . . . would under their [the Socialist] system be 
better guaranteed by their collective bonuses; for it would 
be a matter of importance to each, in respect of his bonus 
and his pay, that no one should receive a full certificate for 
bad or lazy work ; it would be to the interest of each that 
the average cost in labor should be as low as possible, be- 
cause the price of social products would be determined by 
it, so that labor certificates would be worth more the lower 
the social cost of every kind of commodity/' * That this 
argument is valid may be seen by the co-operative enter- 
prises in which there seems to be no abatement, but rather 
increase of zeal. If, under the present system, a small 
share of the profits as seen in profit-sharing, stimulates the 
worker, how much greater will be the incentive under 
Socialism where labor receives the entire profits. " Is it to 
be argued," asks Mrs. Besant, " that men will be industrious, 
careful and inventive when they get only a fraction of the 
result of their associated labor, but will plunge into sloth, 
recklessness and stagnation when they get the whole ? That 
a little gain stimulates, but any gain short of complete satis- 
faction would paralyze ? If there is one vice more certain 
than another to be unpopular in a Socialist community, it is 

1 The Quintessence of Socialism, Schaffle, pp. 53, 54. 



152 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

laziness. The man who shirked would find his mates mak- 
ing his position intolerable." x 

That the wage worker does not do his best under the 
present system is quite evident. He feels that his employer 
is rich and is paying wages far below what he could afford, 
and so takes no interest in his work. This is the complaint 
of employers everywhere. Under Socialism each laborer 
would be interested in increasing the total product, that he 
might increase his own income. 

In a study of co-operation and profit-sharing, where in- 
dividual income depends upon the social product, we find 
that instead of impairing the motive to exertion, the exact 
opposite is the result. This of itself is sufficient to negative 
this objection. 

11. — As to the Confiscation of Property. 

The cry of confiscation is a favorite one with the mouth- 
pieces of the present order. Although we are told by this 
class that confiscation is an essential part of Socialism, we 
find that its programme is entirely silent on the subject. 
Socialists, as some have represented, are not adverse to 
granting compensation. They have proposed no confiscation 
of property. The acquisition of private capital by the Co- 
operative Commonwealth would mean the inauguration of 
Socialism. This new order might be proclaimed in the 
name of the people at any time, and the capitalists then left 
by themselves would no longer be able to carry on the 
private system of production. The only thing left for them 
to do would be to submit to the will of the people. They 
would undoubtedly consider themselves fortunate if they 
and their posterity received compensation for the private 
capital invested. In feudal times the nobility were forced 

1 Fabian Essays, p. 208. 



MISCONCEPTIONS AND OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 153 

to submit to the popular rights asserted by the middle 
classes, and to be contented with compensation for their 
feudal rents. Socialists, indeed, claim that it is to society 
that we owe all wealth, and that the State has a right to 
take private property where such course would be for the 
public good. They assert the Christian principle that all 
property is a trust and so imposes obligations. But they 
advocate a fair compensation, on the ground that the prop- 
erty was acquired by the sanction of society. Confisca- 
tion, then, is no part of their programme, provided, of 
course, the plutocrats submit to their expropriation in good 
grace. But if they should make the revolution a violent 
one, it is likely they would be dispossessed without compen- 
sation. Such have been the precedents of history. For 
example, we need only look at the confiscation of the slaves 
in our own country. Rights given by law, can be taken 
away by law. When we realize that the acquisition of much 
of this wealth has been by questionable methods, we can 
see how the State might take such action without compunc- 
tion of conscience. But this, however, would not likely be 
necessary. Private capital will so gradually become public, 
and with so little friction, that vested interests would not be 
injured, and capitalists as well as others would rejoice in 
the change. 

Do you ask where the money would be obtained to in- 
demnify the present capitalists? The total wealth of the 
United States is now about sixty-four billions dollars, -but 
only a portion of this would be expropriated by the State. 
Socialism does not propose to socialize all wealth, but only 
that represented by the means of production, viz. capital. 
Would they be able to do this ? Let us see. We need to 
note in the first place that these vested interests would not 
be paid off in money. No specie, then, need be borrowed 
or bonds issued. The possessors of this capital would be 



154 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

recompensed in goods, in the means of enjoyment, paid in 
regular annuities until the obligations were satisfied. If in- 
terest should cease to be legitimate, of course society would 
not burden itself with such obligations. Neither would it 
allow its citizens to use their wealth as a means of exploit- 
ation, or to use their property as a private source of income. 
Suppose the State should owe a Vanderbilt one hundred 
millions dollars, and it should pay him one million a year 
for one hundred years, and so cancel the debt. He could 
take his one hundred millions iin labor checks or in non-in- 
terest-bearing certificates of indebtedness, and use them as 
he pleased. One million would be redeemed every year, 
and with this regular annuity he could enjoy himself to his 
heart's content, but, he could not capitalize his wealth and 
turn his superfluity into a source of new income. In the 
words of Dr. Schaffle : — "If the full compensation were 
given, it would only be paid to the persons bought out in 
the shape of consumable goods, not in sources of income or 
instruments of production of any other kind ; as private prop- 
erty in the instruments of production would no longer be 
allowed. ... It will be readily seen that with this kind of 
compensation the gigantic capitals of the Rothschilds and 
others, even if reimbursed to the full value, would only be- 
come a suffocating superfluity of consumable commodities, 
and could have no lasting existence. Great private fortunes 
would at once cease to exist as capital, and speedily also as 
wealth." x 

No need, then, to interfere with inheritance and bequest, 
for it would be but a few generations before such families, 
like all others, would be thrown on their own labor. The 
only inequalities of income that would exist under Socialism 
would be based on personal labor performed. All usury, 
private monopoly, and uneirned income, would be plucked 
1 Quintessence of Socialism, Schaffle, p. 33. 



MISCONCEPTIONS AND OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 155 

up by the roots. Socialism would render a permanent heredi 
tary wealth impossible. Abolish rent and interest and the 
only aristocracy would* be founded upon personal merit. 

12. — As to Corruption of Politics. 

To say, as many do, that the enlargement of the sphere 
of the State would increase corruption, shows a failure to 
trace the evil to its source, and it also betrays an inapprecia- 
tion of the changed conditions which would exist under 
Socialism. The cause of corruption is opposition of private 
to public interests. Self-interest is the root. So long as in- 
dividuals can further their private interests at the expense of 
the public, so long there will be legislative corruption. " The 
railroad lobby is the effect of which self-interest is the cause. " 
Under Socialism there would exist no railroad interest as 
opposed to the social interest, and consequently there would 
be no railroad lobby. Under Socialism not only the incen- 
tive but the opportunity of public corruption would cease. 
The average corporation to-day is admitted to be politically 
a corrupting power. Legislatures are bribed, either directly 
or indirectly, by those owning vast aggregations of wealth, 
that special privileges may be obtained. Socialism would 
correct this evil by removing the cause. We have but to 
refer to Birmingham and many other European cities, once 
enormously corrupt, in proof of this assertion. They have 
become the best-governed cities in the world since the social- 
ization of their natural monopolies. Public and private 
interests must be united in the interests of a higher civiliza- 
tion. Professor Parsons says : — " As for corruption and 
political abuse, it is not public but private enterprise that 
causes these. It is not the post-office or the city water supply 
that runs the lobbies and buys up our legislatures, but the rail- 
roads, telegraph and gas companies. Nothing would purify 
politics and aid civil service reform more effectually than 



i5« 



MODERN SOCIALISM. 



public ownership of monopolies under non-partisan boards 
composed of members from each political party. Experience 
has proved it. Glasgow is full of the worst sort of toughs, 
and its government was very corrupt, till the gas plant, street 
railways, tenement houses, etc., became public property, and 
then the best people said : ; 3ee here, this thing is becoming 
too serious. There is too much at stake ; we will not let these 
roughs run the city for their private profit any longer,' and they 
didn't." x Glasgow to-day is one of the best-governed cities 
in the world. 

The public ownership of monopolies is in itself a tre- 
mendous influence in civil service reform. This is one of 
the surest ways to compel men of character to give attention 
to public affairs. Increase governmental control and the 
best men will at once become interested. The vast business 
interests at stake will arouse them from their lethargy. These 
statements are not based upon theory but upon facts. 

Says Professor Ely : — " Private monopolies must be con- 
trolled by public authority, and control means interference 
with private business, and this begets corruption. . . . When, 
however, we have public ownership and management of natural 
monopolies public interests and private interests are identi- 
fied, and the best citizens are on the side of good government. 
. . . We have here the suggestion of the true way to reform 
our civil service. It is idle to say : ' Wait until our civil 
service is better, and then we will introduce the principle of 
public ownership and management of natural monopolies.' 
The industrial reform must precede, for that alone can open 
the door to thorough-going reform in our administration." 2 
What is true of natural monopolies, is true of all monopolies 
and of all business interests. 

Evolution in society is in constant progress and new rela- 

^Philosophy of Mutualism, Parsons, p. 32. 
2 Political Economy, Ely, p. 257. 



MISCONCEPTIONS AND OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED, 157 

tions are ever evolving. Society should respond to these 
new duties and gladly accept this wider responsibility. This 
policy would tend to purify politics. Expansion of national 
and municipal life tends to improve civil service, but a re- 
striction of governmental enterprise has always wrought dis- 
integration. The let-alone policy means the lessening of 
interest in public life, and so its degradation. We are suf- 
fering to-day from extreme individualism. The let-alone 
policy is helpless in the presence of the great evils that con- 
front us. 

Our incapacity and lack of a sense of responsibility to 
public welfare is largely due to false teaching and develop- 
ment under the one idea of individualism. This excessive 
individualism has rendered us neglectful of public duties. 
We have insisted on belittling governmental functions until 
indifference has taken a strong hold on our best citizens. So 
true is this that Amos G. Warner has said that " the people 
of the United States have a larger share of administrative 
awkwardness than any civilized population.' 7 This is directly 
the result of our excessive individualism. The blind appli- 
cation of this principle is leading us to social disaster. 

Thus it is evident that this objection is without founda- 
tion, even when applied to the extension of the present 
State's activity. But even w r ere it valid under the present 
regime it would not at all follow that it would have any 
point when applied to the utterly changed conditions of 
Socialism. 

This objection when applied to Socialism involves three 
fundamental misconceptions. 

First. — It assumes that a democratic government is some- 
thing separate from and opposed to the people. This is 
somewhat true of our present State, because it lacks certain 
elements of democracy. Our so-called democratic govern- 
ment needs to be further democratized. As this has been 



j^S MODERN SOCIALISM, 

fully treated elsewhere more need not be said in this 
place. 

Second. — It presupposes that the spoils system would con- 
tinue under Socialism. This system is a tremendous factor 
in political corruption, but to suppose that it can form any 
part of a socialistic State, in which every man is a public 
functionary, is to expose gross ignorance of the Socialist 
programme. The part played by the mere office-seeker and 
professional politician would be negatived under the new 
order. True civil service would take the place of the parti- 
san scramble for office, for the administration would be pub- 
lic and not partisan, and so the opportunity as well as the 
motive of corruption would cease. Extirpate the spoils 
system and political abuse would receive a death-blow. 

Third. — It takes for granted that money would exist and 
play as important a part under Socialism as under the 
present system. Money is indeed the root of political evil. 
It is money that runs the lobby, bribes legislators, and de- 
feats the ends of justice. But as we have seen, Socialism 
abolishes money. Nor would corruption exist with other 
species of property, for there would be no motive. Under 
Socialism, what would be the object of legislative dishonesty ? 
There would be no opportunity for a man to secure private 
benefit for there would be no opportunity for him to engage 
in private business. All political jobs, then, which result in 
corrupt legislation, would cease to be. But even were it 
possible for an individual to secure special privileges at the 
expense of the public, where would be the motive? He 
could only obtain an excess of commodities, which he would 
be unable to consume or dispose of. Arid for the same 
reason there would be no temptation for officials to accept 
bribes. Socialism would remove the opportunity and the 
motive of corruption. Men would have no incentive to 
secure a great fortune when they could not capitalize it and 



MISCONCEPTIONS AND OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 159 

make it a source of productivity. With the abolition of 
money political corruption would cease to exist. 

The lobby is a perfectly natural concomitant of the cap- 
italistic system. Do away with private capital and this evil 
would immediately disappear. The corruption of politics 
to-day is inherent in the industrial system, and until the 
system is abandoned it is futile to expect much reform. 
Abolish private capital and political corruption becomes im- 
possible. Eliminate the factor of money and fitness will be- 
come the passport to public office, thus making " a public 
office a public trust." Under our present system the incen- 
tive to corruption is too great to hope for much improvement. 
If men were perfect beings they might administer the present 
State honestly and justly, but in the present stage of human 
development the temptations seem more than frail humanity 
can bear. So long as government must depend for admin- 
istration on imperfect beings, it would seem the only wise 
course to remove the motive of perfidy and dishonor. So- 
cialism would not only remove the motive but also the op- 
portunity for corruption. 

It is sometimes thought by ill-informed persons that So- 
cialism could not be realized until men became more honest. 
Not so. First remove the cause of dishonesty in public 
administration, — private gain. Render it impossible for 
men to subserve individual interests by violating the public 
trust, and faithful, honest legislation will be secured. If 
men could not advance their own interests at the expense of 
the public, they would have no motive to bribe public of- 
ficials. By removing capital from private control we remove 
the cause of political jobbery. Under Socialism there would 
be no opportunity to raid the treasury or secure fraudulent 
appropriations. 

Socialism, instead of increasing political corruption, is the 
only remedy for its removal. 



1 60 MODERN SO CIA LISM. 

13. — As to the Character of the Exponents of 
Socialism. 

It has sometimes been thought that the exponents of So- 
cialism are wild theorists. But Professor Ely declares that 
Socialism " has found advocates among many gifted, learned, 
and very practical men. The leaders of Socialism in the 
present century have generally been men of extraordinary 
capacity, placing themselves far above the ordinary man." 
Among those whom he mentions are Robert Owen, William 
Morris, and others trained in the great English universities, 
who have been successful in whatever they have undertaken. 
He also mentions Fredrick Engels, Ferdinand Lassalle, and 
Karl Marx, the leaders of German social democracy. Of these 
he says : " Karl Marx is recognized by friend and foe as 
one of the most learned and gifted economic thinkers of 
the present century ; Fredrick Engels is one with whom 
economic philosophy must deal, and it is said, besides, that 
he has been more than ordinarily successful in business ; 
while the gifts of Ferdinand Lasselle attracted the attention 
of all with whom he came in contact." 

" Nor can it be denied that those who are giving Socialism 
its shape in Switzerland, France, the United States, and else- 
where, are men who must command our respect on account of 
their capacity of every sort." He then calls attention to the 
fact that Socialism is not a scheme that meets with favor among 
criminals. The criminal classes are conservative in their 
religous and economic views. In support of this proposition 
he gives many reasons and facts. He also finds that So- 
cialism is greatly favored among people of artistic tempera- 
ment. Many poets, painters, and authors have been enthu- 
siastic in support of the cause. William Morris and Alfred 
Hayes prominent among English poets, and Walter Crane 
the artist, are members of the Fabian Society. Many others, 



MISCONCEPTIONS AND OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED, 161 

such as John Ruskin and W. D. Howells, may be classed 
as Socialists. ' 

The unfavorable atmosphere for art and literature pro- 
duced by competitive society, is the explanation of the grow- 
ing sentiment of Socialism among the intelligent classes. 
Both art and literature demand a suitable social environ- 
ment. The widening gulf between the classes is fatal to 
these accomplishments. What is needed is more leisure 
and comfort for the masses and a higher public life, such 
as will furnish an atmosphere in which they can thrive. 
Socialism would furnish the suitable conditions. It empha- 
sizes the subordination of the economic life, and would 
secure leisure and opportunity for the development of the 
higher faculties. 

14. — As to Socialism and Paternalism. 

Socialism and paternalism are often confounded. A pater- 
nal government is one in which the people have nothing to 
say, — a government outside the people in which everything 
is done for them. All monarchical governments are pater- 
nal. Those who believe in paternal government have held 
that the power of sovereignty is like that of a father over a 
family, and that through patriarchs the right descended to 
kings. If a king presides over a country and rules it with- 
out the voice of the people, establishing a postal service and 
building railroads, that is paternalism. 

Socialism, however, is not /^ternalism but /hzternalism. 
Socialists propose to own and manage the instruments of 
production and distribution themselves. This is true de- 
mocracy. Socialism is essentially democratic and the anti- 
thesis of paternalism. In a democratic government the 
people manage their own affairs ; in a paternal government 
the people have no voice. 

1 Socialism and Socialism Reform, pp. 38, 1 57. 
II 



1 62 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

Socialism is neither paternalism nor governmentalism. 
Socialists do not propose turning industry over to a govern- 
ment of any kind. What they do propose is to organize 
business upon a co-operative basis to be operated by the 
people in the interests of the people. Socialism is co- 
operation, — organized society, — in which the people own 
and operate their own industries. Socialists being demo- 
crats have always opposed paternalism and the extension 
of paternal government. Many Socialists have opposed the 
extension of our present government until it has been 
socialized. 

Paternalism is more applicable to a representative than 
to a Socialist government ; but even here the term is a 
misnomer. In fact, the term, " paternal government," has 
reference only to the kind of government, and not to the 
details of administration. A paternal government is really 
a government over which a patriarch rules. Paternalism 
has no reference to the functions of government, says 
Professor Ely, and he also adds that those who use the word 
to describe the activity of a democratic state are illogical, 
for in a democracy the people themselves govern, and the 
State does not exist as something separate from them. 
' The real paternalism in this country is the private owner- 
ship and control of industry. We have seen that paternal- 
ism is that which is done for us. This is applicable to the 
individual or corporation as well as to the government. 
When the people leave the railroads, telephone and tele- 
graph companies, etc., in the hands of private parties, and 
allow them to do these things for us instead of doing them 
ourselves, they are paternalists. In the management of 
these industries the people have nothing to say, which is the 
very essence of paternalism. Were the people to assume 
control of these monopolies and manage them in their own 
interests, that would be fraternalism. 



MISCONCEPTIONS AND OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED, 163 

Socialism, then, is fraternalism, not paternalism. 
15. — As to Socialism and Anarchism. 

Many people have fallen into the error of confounding 
Socialism and Anarchism. Capitalists have lost no oppor- 
tunity to strengthen this misconception in order thereby to 
discredit the former. The two, however, are at antipodes. 
Socialism believes in the extension of government ; Anarch- 
ism believes in the destruction of government. They are 
diametrically opposed and move in contrary directions. 

The Socialist Labor Party has issued a pamphlet entitled, 
" Socialism and Anarchism — Antagonistic Opposites." It 
says, " Socialists and Anarchists, as such, are enemies. 
They pursue contrary aims, and the success of the one will 
forever destroy the fanatical hopes of the latter." 

Anarchism might more easily be confounded with Individ- 
ualism, for Anarchism is but Individualism carried to its 
logical conclusion. Anarchists and Individualists both 
proclaim to the State, " hands off." The main difference 
between Individualism and Anarchism is that one is peace- 
ful while the other is violent. They both decry State inter- 
ference in industry. 

While Anarchism would destroy the State and all govern- 
ment, Socialism regards the State as the highest good and 
would socialize it and extend its sphere of activity. Socialists 
and Anarchists are always in conflict and where one party 
is strong the other is weak. The Anarchist weakness in Ger- 
many is due to the Socialist strength in that country. An- 
archists are always expelled from Socialist conventions, as 
evidenced by their International convention in Brussels in 
189 1, in Zurich in 1893, and in London in 1896. 



1 64 MODERN SOCIALISM. 



CHAPTER XV. 

CONCLUSION. 

The work of Socialists to-day is that of education and 
organization. The main thing is to make people under- 
stand the import of Socialism. When the public really 
desires Socialism there will be no trouble about plans. The 
people will have no difficulty in bringing their ideal into effect. 
Socialism will grow out of the present conditions and organ- 
izations, as naturally and progressively as the unfolding of 
a flower. When the time is ripe for the inauguration of the 
new regime (and this social metamorphosis is nearer than 
some suppose), the people will formulate a much better 
scheme than any I could outline to-day, for it may come 
along lines, and in ways little comprehended at the present 
time. It is impossible to foresee all the social forms in 
which the economic development will ultimately find ex- 
pression. Capitalism has taken on varied forms in the 
various countries in which it prevails. It would have been 
impossible at the beginning of the capitalistic era, to have 
foretold all these manifold forms which differ widely 
in the various capitalistic nations. Socialism, however, 
" has a clearer insight into the future than had the path- 
finders of the present order ; and its political, historical and 
economic literature points out much more clearly, than did 
that of the capitalist revolutionists of a hundred years ago, the 
outlines and leading features of the coming social order." s 

Socialism, however, will come gradually. Just as feudal- 
ism gave way to the wage system, the wage system will 
gradually give way to the co-operative system. Socialism 
may come either from above or below. From below upward, 
1 Labor Library, No. 9, Kantsky. 



CONCLUSION. 165 



through the development of profit-sharing and voluntary 
co-operation, a coalescence of which in large groups would 
finally realize the Co-operative Commonwealth, or, from above 
downward, by the government absorption of monopolies. 
The first monopolies to be socialized will be natural monop- 
olies, many of which have already passed under collective 
control, such as gas and electric lighting, water supply, the 
postal system, etc. Others, such as the railroads, telegraph 
and telephones, should follow suit without delay. Then will 
come the great trusts and syndicates which, as we have seen, 
are already organized for socialization. The State should 
prbceed to assume control of these businesses as rapidly as 
practicable. Our duty is to co-operate with forces already 
at work and make the transition as expeditious as possible. 

Socialism is not merely a class movement as some sup- 
pose. It concerns all classes and will equally benefit all 
classes. It means the emancipation of the whole human 
race. But the initiative, however, must come from the 
laboring class, because all other classes imagine they have 
a common interest in maintaining the present order. The 
modern property-holder, the same as the slaveholder of old, 
is blind to his higher interest. 

Let us remember that Socialism is a principle admitting 
of a variety of expressions and applications. If the principle 
is right the method of carrying it out will be ascertained, 
if, perchance, only after many experiments. We need to 
distinguish between the principles of Socialism, and its 
unessential features and minor details. Various methods 
have been proposed by the advocates of the regime, by 
which to secure the desired end. Many opponents have 
fallen into the fallacy of supposing that by combating some 
of these' unessential details, they were overthrowing the 
whole system. The fundamental principle of Socialism is 
16 altruism," "each for all and all for each." It has for its 



1 66 MODERN SOCIALISM. 

ideal the dethronement of mammon and selfishness, and the 
exaltation of God and humanity. That this end can be at- 
tained under the present regime, only the most sanguine con- 
tend. All Economists recognize the injustice of present 
methods, and strive to mitigate the evils. Nearly every 
proposition for remedying the wrongs lies in the direction of 
Socialism, and were they carried far enough to be effective, 
they would result in Socialism. The evils are inherent in 
the present system and cannot be remedied by any measure 
that falls short of the Socialist demands. The instruments 
of production, distribution, and exchange must be socialized 
sufficiently to secure social justice. Will this end be at- 
tained ? We plead guilty to the charge of optimism. We be- 
lieve that the ideal of the ages will be realized. We hold 
that the course of human history is such as to warrant us in 
maintaining that society is capable of being born out of its 
travail of sorrow and struggle into a condition of plenty and 
comfort for all. We expect long ages of humanity on this 
earth when war, oppression, enmity, poverty, and want shall 
exist only in tradition ; when the sun shall rise to gladden 
the eyes of every man, woman, and child. The prayer of 
the Nazarene, " Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on 
earth as it is in Heaven," will surely be answered. Do 
Christian people believe that Jesus prayed in vain ? If not, 
why do so many of His so-called disciples antagonize the 
Socialist ideal? The ethics of Socialism are the ethics of 
Christianity. Nearly all people desire Socialism, but some 
wish it to be postponed to the next world. They tell us that 
we all will be kings over there. But if Socialism is needed 
anywhere it is needed right here. And if it is a good thing, 
why postpone it until the future life ? If Socialism is a 
good thing for paradise, why not have it here in this world ? 
Socialism is but an endeavor to realize upon earth this 
ideal, — to bring about the Kingdom of God among men. Is 



CONCLUSION. 167 



it not a little inconsistent in those who pretend to believe 
in this condition for the next world to so strenuously oppose 
it for this? Their opposition, however, will not prevent 
its fulfilment, for people are beginning to realize that profit- 
mongers are unnecessary to labor, and that the whole class 
of perpetual pensioners on productive toil could as well be 
eliminated. 

We need to inspire working people with hope, and show 
them the way of their emancipation. The fact of the rapid 
spread of socialistic ideas is an encouraging sign. The 
latest statistics of the Socialist vote in the various countries 
evidence that salvation is nigh. 

The People of Dec. 27th, 1896, gives the Socialist strength 
in different countries as follows : 

Germany. —-Vote, 1871, 124,655 ; 1881, 311,961 ; 1890, 
1,427,298; 1893, 1,876,738. Socialist Trade Union mem- 
bership, 250,000 ; 48 members in the Reichstag ; 4 daily 
papers and 23 weekly papers. 

France. — Vote, 1889, 91,000; 1893, 600,000; 1896, 
1,400,000 ; 62 members in the National Chamber of Dep- 
uties ; elected majorities in the Council of Paris and 28 
other large cities and in 1,200 small cities ; 78 papers. The 
Capitalists complain of " Coercion." 

Italy. — Vote 1893, 20,000; 1896,90,000; 19 members in 
Parliament; 33 papers. 

Denmark. — Vote, 1872, 315; 1884, 6,805; 1S87, 8,408; 
1890, 17,232; 1893, 25,019; Socialists Trade Unions, 713; 
6 daily and 3 weekly papers ; great gains recently ; 9 mem- 
bers in Parliament. 

Norway. — Seventy-six organizations; 2 daily papers; 
growing rapidly. 

Sweden. — One Socialist member in Parliament, from 
Stockholm, in spite of the property qualifications for voters. 

Holland. — Vote, 1895, 280,000. 



1 68 MODERN SOCIALISM. 



Belgium. — Vote, 1895,344,000; 1896,461,000; members 
of Parliament, 33 ; daily papers, 4 ; Socialist university and 
schools. The capitalists fear a Socialist triumph at the next 
elections. 

Switzerland. — Vote, 1896, 107,990. 

Austria. — 90,000 members ; 65 Socialist journals. 

England. — Vote, 1895, 98,000. 

Ireland. — Organizing rapidly under the name " The Irish 
Socialist Republican Party." 

Servia. — Membership, 50,000. 

Canada. — Movement growing in the cities. 

Argentine Republic. — 76 organizations. 

Spain. — Five weekly papers ; large city growth. 

United States. — Vote, 1888,2,068; 1890, 13,331; 1892, 
21,15751894,33,133; 1896, 36^63. Presidential ticket 
in twenty states. Socialist Trades and Labor Alliance 
growing. This, however, does not represent the full strength 
of Socialism. There are thousands of people who accept 
the principles of Socialism, but have never affiliated with 
the Socialist Party. 

Walter Vrooman in his Government Ownership has shown 
the industrial progress Socialism has made in the world. 
He gives 337 enterprises conducted by the various govern- 
ments, municipal and national, and 225 enterprises which 
are more or less controlled or restricted by the people. The 
progress already made by Socialism evidences that the great 
mechanism of industry in the future is to be owned and 
operated in the interests of the whole people. Indeed, the 
redemption of humanity from industrial slavery is assured. 
But let us not relax our efforts, for much yet remains to be 
done. Rather let us increase our vigilance, knowing that 
our labor is not in vain. This hope of the coming kingdom 
is well expressed by William Morris in his poem, The Day 
is Coming, from which I have selected the following stanzas : 



CONCLUSION. 169 



" Come hither lads, and hearken, for a tale there is to tell, 
Of the wonderful days a-coming when all shall be better than well. 

u There more than one in a thousand in the days that are yet to come, 
Shall have some hope of the morrow, some joy of the ancient home. 

"Then a man shall work and bethink him, and rejoice in the deeds 
of his hand, 
Nor yet come home in the even too faint and weary to stand. 

" Men in that time a-coming shall work and have no fear 
For to-morrow's lack of earning and the hunger-wolf anear. 

" I tell you this for a wonder, that no man then shall be glad 
Of his fellow's fall and mishap to snatch at the work he had. 

" For that which the worker winneth shall then be his indeed, 
Nor shall half be reaped for nothing by him that sowed no seed. 

" O strange new wonderful justice ! But for whom shall we gather the 
gain ? 
For ourselves and for each of our fellows, and no hand shall labor in 
vain. 

" Then all mine and all thine shall be ours, and no more shall any 
man crave 
For riches that serve for nothing but to fetter a friend for a slave. 

" Ah ! such are the days that shall be ! But what are the deeds of 
to-day, 
In the days of the years that we dwell in, that wear our lives away ? 

" Why, then, and for what are we waiting ? There are three words 
to speak, 
We will it, and what is the foeman but the dream-strong wakened 
and weak ? 

" O why and for what are we waiting ? while our brothers droop and 
die, 
And on every wind of the heavens a wasted life goes by. 

" How long shall they reproach us where crowd on crowd they dwell, 
Poor ghosts of the wicked city, the gold-crushed hungry hell ? 



170 



MODERN SOCIALISM. 



" Come, then, let us cast off fooling, and put by ease and rest, 
For the Cause alone is worthy till the good days bring the best. 

"Come, join in the only battle wherein no man can fail, 
Where whoso fadeth and dieth, yet his deed shall still prevail. 

" Ah ! come, cast off fooling, for this, at least, we know : 
That the Dawn and the Day is coming, and forth the Banners go." 



INDEX. 



Adulterations, incentive to, 41, 129. 

Agriculture, effect of competition upon, 20; economy of organized, 

42 ; machinery used in, revolution of, 42-44. 
All-inclusiveness of Socialism, 98. 
Anarchism and Socialism, 163. 

B. 

Bascom, John, on competition, 64. 

Bellamy, Edward, on concentration of wealth, 25 ; on economic 

equality, 57 ; on planlessness of the present order, 65. 
Besant, Mrs., on the performance of disagreeable work under Socialism, 

140 ; on the motives to industry, and laziness under Socialism, 

151. 
Blatchford, Robert, on distribution of wealth in England, 85; on 

Socialism as a scheme of insurance, 131. 
Bliss, W. D. P., on the condition of labor past and present, 114. 
Bryce, James, on direct legislation, 72. 
Bright, John, on adulteration, 77. 



Capital, amount needed in production, 20; how preserved, 60; Social- 
ism not opposed to, 61 ; expropriated by society, compensation 
for, 152-154; repletion of, under Socialism, 54. 

Capitalist, downfall of small, 20; growth of large, 20, 21; differentia- 
tion between manager and, 22 ; superfluous, 22 ; definition of, 37 ; 
should be favorable to Socialism, 39 ; a product of the present 
rigime, and powerless under it, 61. 

171 



172 INDEX. 



Capitalism and economic waste, 1 23-1 31. 

Christianity and Socialism, ethics akin if not identical, 80. 

Christianization of the present order, 98-100 ; futility of, 99. 

Clark, J. B., on business depravity, 63. 

Consumption of wealth uniform under Socialism, 54. 

Commerce, under Socialism, 41, 45. 

Commons, John R., on economic surplus, 27. 

Competition, doom of, 23; vs. combination, 63-66; evils of, 64, 65; 

no free field for, 24, 67 ; dishonesty caused by, 77 ; utterly un- 
christian, 100; waste of, 123-131. 
Co-operation, advantages of, 29-44. 
Co-operative Commonwealth, certainty of, 25, 164-166; practicability 

of, 28 ; description of, 35, 36 ; not a fixed system, 57 ; moral 

strength of, 77-80 ; liberty attained in, 146. 
Criminals, produced by present social arrangements, yy ; not favorably 

inclined to Socialism, 160. 
Crises and Industrial depressions, 101-113, 127; distinction between, 

102; universality of, 102, 103; cause of, 103-109; remedy for, 

107, 108; alleged causes of, in, 112. 

D. 

Definitions of Socialism, Ely's, Schaffle's, Kirkup's, Standard Dic- 
tionary's, 10, 11. 
Demand and Supply, how adjusted under Socialism, 53, 54 ; effect on 

value, 53. 
Democracy, industrial, 67-76; certain of attainment, 68; comparison 

of the development of politics, religion and industry toward, 

68, 69. 
Depew, Chauncey M., on the dependence of the country on a few 

men, 21. 
De Tocqueville, on the remedy for the evils of democracy, 73. 
Direct Legislation, 71-73. 
Distribution, of the income of society, 12; justice the aim of socialistic, 

12, 13; strength of Socialism as a scheme for, 28-41 ; of 

national income, 26, 27. 
Divorce, 136. 

E. 
Economy, in production, 34, 35,42, 43, 125; in public ownership of 



INDEX. 1 73 



railways, 123; in social distribution of milk, 124; in stores, 124, 
125; in distribution of commodities, 39; total saving under 
Socialism, 131 ; in transportation, 41. 

Economic Evolution, 19-28; result of, 19-21 ; consummation of, 25. 

Education, industrial, would be complete under Socialism, 95, 130; the 
present system an enemy of, 97 ; Socialism would lead to a 
higher state of, 98. 

Ely, Prof., his definition of Socialism, 10; on inventions, 15; on social- 
ization of the means of production, 18 ; on contradictions of the 
present order, 29 ; on the strength of Socialism from the stand- 
point of the employer, and the professions, 39, 40 ; on taxation, 
present methods not answering the requirements of morality, 95, 
96; on the crisis, cause of, Socialism the remedy for, 107, 127; 
on causes of divorce, 136; on corruption of politics, 156; on the 
character of the exponents of Socialism, 160, 161. 

Employer, birth of, 14; appropriation of, 36, yj- 

Engels, Fredrich, on individual and social production, 16. 

Exponents of Socialism, 160, 161. 



Family, Socialism not hostile to, 133; destruction of, under the 
present system, 134; would be elevated under Socialism, 134, 

135- 
Farmer, the small, 19, 20; produces for capricious market, 31. 
Farming, advantage of large bonanza farms, 42-44. 
Fawcett, Prof., on steam cultivation of land, 42. 
Flag, red, emblem of, 13. 
Fleecings, meaning of, ^j. 

Foreign Markets, necessary to capitalism, result of loss of, no. 
Fraternalism, 161, 162. 
Freedom of Contract, 99, 120. 



Gas supply, waste of, under competition, 1 23. 

Government, democratic, 67-76 ; extension of functions not necessarily 
socialistic, 70 ; present despotic, 68 ; two functions of, Socialists 
desire the decentralization of, 70 ; aristocratic tendencies of the 
founders of our, 72 ; Socialist construction and administration of, 
73-75; Socialism would greatly improve, 76. 



174 INDEX, 

Greenbackism, not Socialism, 45. 

Gronlund, Laurence, on the purposes of Socialism, 30; on the realiza- 
tion of Socialism, 35, 36 ; on value, 47, 52 ; on a Socialistic ad- 
ministration, 73-75; on the crises, 103, 104; on marriage and the 
family under Socialism, 135. 

H. 

Holmes, Thomas G., on the concentration of wealth, 26. 

I. 

Illiteracy, statistics concerning, 97 ; Socialism would remove, 97, 98. 
Incentive to labor, not diminished under Socialism, 147-152. 
Individualism, distinguished from Socialism, 8 ; essence of, 80 ; causes 

neglect of public duties, is leading to social disaster, 157. 
Industry, development of, 19-25; revolution of, how brought about, 

14-16; can only be regulated by socializing production, 108; 

motives to, 147-152. 
Inheritance, 136. 

Initiative and Referendum, 72, 73. 

Intemperance, consumption of liquors, 129; remedy for, 81. 
Interest, fall of, 20 ; the question of, 59-62 ; what it is, II, 59 ; reasons 

given in its justification unsatisfactory, 60; rightfulness of, true 

reason given by Socialists for, 38, 62 ; its abolition will be natural, 

not arbitrary, 62. 
Inventions, stimulus given by Socialism to, beginning of an age of, 94, 

95; eighteenth century, 15. 
Imperative Mandate, 75. 

Joint-Stock-Co., growth of, union of, 22, 23; necessity of, 24; 

formation of, 36. 
Jones, Alexander, on the advantage of Socialist production, 33-35 ; on 

the crisis, 105, 106. 

K. 

Kantsky, on the insight of Socialists into the future, 164. 
Kirkup, his definition of Socialism, 11. 



INDEX. 



175 



Labor, wage, birth of, 14; exploitation of, 32-35, 37, 38, 46,47, 108, 
109, in, 121, 122; two values of, 46, 47 ; measure of value, 48-54 ; 
abstract distinguished from concrete, 49-51 ; manual, mental and 
moral reduced to abstract labor time, 51; unproductive, how 
provided for under Socialism, 54; how graded and remunerated 
under the new regi?ne> 54, 55 ; condition of, under present system 
hopeless, 79, 112, 122; useless, 85; time of, sufficient if all were 
productively employed, 86; cannot purchase the wealth it 
creates, 109 ; conditions of, past and present — comparison, 
1 1 4-1 22; golden age of, 115; worst condition of, 115, 116; 
cause of the degradation of English, 116, 117; dependence of, 
120; must always be fleeced under capitalism, 121; under 
Socialism who would perform disagreeable, 140-142 ; freedom 
of choice of, under Socialism, 145, 146; motive to, 147-152. 

Laissez-faire, attitude of Socialists in certain sphere one of, 70 ; estab- 
lishment of brotherhood in place of, 79. 

Liquor Traffic, root of the evil, 81 ; solution of, 81, 82, 129; advantage 
of nationalization, 82 ; prohibition of no especial benefit to labor 
under the wage system, 82-84; waste of, extent of, 129. 

Liberty and Freedom, destruction of, under Socialism, 142-146; not 
enjoyed to-day, 142, 143; real restrictions to, 143, 144; large 
scope of, under Socialism, 146. 

Litigation abolished by Socialism, 128. 

Lloyd, H. D., on the extortion of coal railroads, 99. 

Luxury, false defence of, 86. 



M. 

Machinery, Socialism would insure full utilization of, 32 ; labor-sav- 
ing, 87-95; displacement of labor, caused by, 87-91; of little 
benefit to labor, 92 ; constantly renders laborers superfluous, 93 ; 
under Socialism a blessing to all, 94; Socialism would solve 
problem of, 94 ; under Socialism would serve labor, not compete 
with it, 95. 

Manufactories, age of, 14. 

Mammon dethroned by Socialism, 61. 

Marx, Karl, on value, 50. 

Merchant, small, destruction of, 21. 



I7^___ — --— " " ^^6o^iTthe benefits 

Lee, i 3 6; ast0SUteS Ts\ a ^y 139. Ho; as to disagreeable 
I39; as to Socialism and Sfcv«yv ' » f and free dom, 

Sk. X40, X4i; - to the taW « ag t0 confisca uon 

,42-146; as to motives of m ™*2on rf politics, 155-159! as to 

rf property, .jMSSJ "*"£?5*£-, 160, 161 < as to 
th e characters of the exponents ot ^ ^ Sodalism and 

Socialism and paternalism, 16 , here D f government 

anarchism, .63; as to the ex en *»«* * J ^ s of office , 7 o; 
^^SittVso^ -fore human nature . 

improved, 79- . . the liquor traffic, 81-84; 

povty. 84-87, » e ^^^ ,„_,«, 



Moral resui^ - 

Morris, William, poem by, 1&9. 



, . t eoiiitarv but insufficient, i37» 



O. 



Over-production , jj g^^*^ oi labor a cause of, *«'■ 
Snotb^riousUerSociaUsm.tt, 

P. 

/», on economic 
. Prof on concentration of wealth, 25, , rfal sel{ . 

corruption of politics, 155- 



INDEX. 177 



Paternalism and Socialism, 1 61-163. 

People, The, on the Socialist strength in different countries, 167, 168. 

Planlessness of competitive production, 30-35, 102-107. 

Politics, corruption of, 155-159- 

Political Economy, purpose of, 59. 

Poverty, cause of, abolition of, 84-87 ; what constitutes, relativity of, 

118-119. 
Production, as carried on now and under Socialism, 12, 29, 30 ; trans 

formation of, 13-16; social nature of, 17—18 ; concentration of 

25 ; elimination of chance in, 30, 31 ; number engaged in useless, 

85, 86; why carried on, 12, 101 ; planlessness of, 30-35, 102-107. 
Profits, fall of, 20; producers of, 33 ; appropriation of, ^ 37- 
Prohibition, how best secured, 82 ; would not benefit labor under 

present system, 82-84. 
Proletarian, propertyless, 19; redemption of, 122. 
Property, private, in income and in wealth, 13; aim of Socialism in 

regard to, 132, 133; confiscation of, 152-155. 
Provision of Socialism for the repletion of capital and the remunera* 

tion of unproductive labor, 54. 
Publications, under Socialism, 138, 139. 

R. 

Referendum and Initiative, 72, 73. 

Reform, all propositions of, lie in the direction of Socialism, 166. 

Rent, under Socialism, 97 ; utilization of, 54. 

Report of Commissioner of Labor, on displacement of labor, 87-90 ; 

on liquor traffic, 81 ; on over-production and effect of machinery) 

91 ; on illiteracy, 97; on crises, 102, 103. 
Representative system, 71-73. 
Ricardo, on value, 48 ; on labor, 52. 
Risk, question of, 32, 33. 
Rodbertus, on what constitutes poverty, 118. 
Rogers, Prof., on the golden age of English labor, 115; on the period 

of pauperism, 115, 116; on the conspiracy to degrade English 

labor, 116, 117. 

S. 

Schaffle, Dr., his definition of Socialism, 10 ; on motives to industry 
under Socialism, 150, 151; on compensation for private capital, 
!54- 



178 INDEX. 



Shearman, Thomas G., on the concentration of wealth, 26. 

Slavery, chattel and wage, 17 ; why abrogate chattel and leave wage, 
68; condition and existence of, 121, 142; and Socialism, 139, 140 

Speculation, abolition of, 41. 

Spencer, Herbert, on the dishonesty of business methods, yy. 

Sprague, F. M., on the moral results of the Socialistic State, yy, y8; on 
the spirit of mercantilism, 135; on the performance of disagree- 
able work under Socialism, 145, 146; on motives to industry, 150. 

State Socialism, 136-138. 

Stores, department, 21, 41 ; small, 40, 41. 

Strong, Josiah, on the distribution of the national income, 26, 27. 

Society, wants of, 29,30; moral responsibility of, 77 ; new duties of, 
157- 

Socialism, meaning of, 9, 13; origin of word, first used, 9; aim of, 9, 
30, 166; scientific, 10 ; .definitions of, 10, 11 ; primal elements of, 
12, 13; does not imply exclusive social ownership, 11 ; produc- 
tion under, 29-35; unemployed inconceivable under, 12; origin 
of modern, 14-16; remedy proposed by, 17, 18; advantages of, 
in production, distribution and consumption, 29-44 ; postulates 
of, in regard to money, value and wages, 45-58 ; good moral re- 
sults of, 77-80; Socialism and modern problems, 81-100; and 
economic waste, 1 23-1 31 ; misconceptions of, objections to, 
132-163; will come gradually, 164; not merely a class move- 
ment, 165 ; not a fixed system, admits of a variety of expressions, 
57, 165; certainty of attainment, 28, 166; desired by all for para- 
dise, 166, 167; strength of, in various countries, 167, 168; in- 
dustrial progress of, 168. 

Socialists, endeavor of, 18 ; complain not so much of absolute as of 
relative conditions, 19 ; demand in regard to natural monopolies, 
138; disapprove of special privileges, 70. 



Taxation, 95-97 ; Socialism would remove the evils of, 95 ; Socialism 

offers the only solution of the problem of, 96. 
Toynbee, Prof., on the revolution of industry, 15; on over-production, 

Trade, 39, 41 ; settling balances of, with foreign nations, 45. 
Transportation, how effected by Socialism, 41. 

Trusts, formation and power of, 23, 24; combination of, 25 ; principle 
of, sound, 27 ; socialization of, 28 ; cannot abolish crises, 108. 



INDEX. 179 



U. 

Unemployed, problem and reason of, 92-94, 101 ; inconceivable under 
Socialism, 12. 

V. 

Value, 47-54- 

Vrooman, Walter, on the industrial progress of Socialism, 168. 

W. 

Wages, when paid in money obscures exploitation, 46, 47 ; how de- 
termined under Socialism, 54-56; all forms of payment of, com- 
patible with spirit of Socialism, 57 ; equalization of, 56-58; past 
and present, compared, 11 4-1 22; can never rise sufficient to 
eliminate exploitation, 121 ; tendencies which work for the re- 
duction of, 122. 

Walsh, George E., on steam and electricity in farming, 45. 

Warner, Amos G., on administrative awkwardness of the United States, 

157- 

Wastes of capitalism — the competitive system, 1 23-1 31 ; from railways, 
telegraphs, gas works, 123; from the milk business, 124; from 
useless stores, 124; from needless manufactories, 125; from ad- 
vertising, 125, 126; from the needless drummer, 126; from en- 
forced idleness, 126, 127 ; from crises, 127 ; from needless litiga- 
tion, 128; from needless police and prisons, 128; from strikes 
and lockouts, 128, 129; from needless charity, 130; from ineffi- 
ciency of labor, 130; from banking and insurance, 130, 131 ; total, 

Wealth, concentration of, 25-27 ; cause of concentration of, 27 ; cause of 
excessive accumulation of, 148. 

Webb, Sidney, on the outcome of democracy, y6. 

Webster, Daniel, on the endurance of government, 27. 

W T eils, D. A., on large stores, 21; on the comparative cost of raising 
wheat on farms of different sizes, on the revolution in agricul- 
ture, 42, 43. 

Wescott, Dr., his definition of Socialism, 9. 

Women, employment of, condition under Socialism, 133-136. 

Woolsey, Dr., on the moral advantages of the Socialistic State, 78. 



NETW BOOK. 



National Ownership 
of Railways. 

By Re-v. Charles H. "Vail. 



CONTENTS. 



I.— Public Highways. 
II.— Analogy. 

III.— Accumulation of Wealth. 
IV.— Corruption of Politics. 
V.— Discriminations. 
VI.— The Remedy. 
VII.— Method of Purchase. 



Vm.-The Cost. 
IX.— Economy of Public Worship. 
X.— Experience. 

XI.- Public Safety Demands Gov- 
ernment Ownership. 
XII.— Objections Considered. 



Perhaps no greater question has appeared above the horizon of 
the industrial world than the relation of the government to the rail- 
ways of the country. Shall the railroads be owned and operated as 
private or as public property? This is the point at issue. Believing 
with many others that public ownership is the only solution of the 
railroad problem, I offer in evidence of ' this position the following 
reasons for the faith which is in us.— Author's Preface. 



Paper, 15 Cents. 



The Humboldt Library, 

64 Kiftfr A venuie, New Yori 



<8> 



.®®i 



SELECT LIST OF BOOKS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SUBJECTS. 

Author. Title of Book. Paper. Cloth. 

1. Altgeld Live Questions. By Gov. Altgeld $ .35 $ .75 

( Physics and Politics. An application of the 

2. Bagehot -< Principles of Natural Science to Political 

( Society. By Walter Bagehot 15 

3. Bellamy Looking Backward. By Edward Bellamy 50 1.00 

a nrovavnxr i Historical Sketch of the Distribution of Land in 

*' DIRKBECK ( England. By William Lloyd Birkbeck, M.A. . .15 

* T\i 4^tt j Ultimate Finance : A true theory of Co-oper- 

°' ^ LA - K | ation. By William Nelson Black. .15 

R -p TTOO J What Christian Socialism Is. By Rev. W. D. P. 

b ' " bLISS | Bliss 10 

7. Bliss What Is Socialism ? By Rev. W. D. P. Bliss 05 

8. Campbell Prisoners of Poverty. By Helen Campbell 50 1.00 

f The Socialism and Unsocial ism of Thomas Car- 
9 Carlytf ■! ^* e * A collection of Carlyle's social writings; 

j together with Joseph Mazzini's famous essay 

[ protesting against Carlyle's views. 2 vols 50 1.50 

•« n » t >T,^x,m^T, S Civilization : Its Cause and Cure. By Edward 

it. CARPENTER.. . . -j Carpenter 15 

'i r»rr<-^ ' j Letters to Farmers 1 Sons on the Questions of 

u. tHA^E ( the Day. By "Pa 1 ' Chase 25 .50 

*« n rtW n» j Social Reform and the Church. By Prof. John 

U. commons { R Commons .75 

IH. I onnelly Caesar's Column. By Ignatius Donnelly 50 1.25 

,. tj, r i Labor Movement in America. By Richard T. 

14 ' ^ LY \ El , PhD 1.50 

1F v j French and German Socialism in Modern Times. 

1%> ^ v ( By Richard T. Ely, Ph.D 25 .75 

ifc ~„ j Social Aspects of Christianity. By Richard T. 

]b - *** 1 Ely,Ph.D .90 

--. w _ _. (Socialism and Social Reform. By Richard T: 

u - tLY \ Ely, PhD 1.50 

18. Emerson Essays. By Ralph Waldo Emerson. 2 vols 30 .75 



19. 



■p, j The Development of Socialism from Utopia to 



20. Fabian j The Fabian Essays. American Edition, with 

Society | Introduction and Notes by H. G. Wilshire 25 .75 

01 -cv^™ (The History of Landholding in England. By 

gl. 1-isher -j Joseph F i s her, F.R.H.S 

22. George Progress and Poverty. By Henry George 50 1.00 

23. George Social Problems. By Henry George 50 1.00 

24. Gillette The Human Drift . By King C . Gillette 50 

n \ The Co-operative Commonwealth. An Exposi- 

&. Lt.onlu.d -j tion of Socialism. By Laurence Gronlund. . . .50 1.00 



34. Karl Marx....- 



SELECT LIST OF BOOKS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SUBJECTS. 

Author. Title of Book. Paper. Cloth. 

or p Dnviirim \ Our Destiny. The Influence of Nationalism on 

*>. UROMAJ.D i Morals and Religion. By Laurence Gronlund. .50 1.00 

27. Herron The Christian State. By Rev. Geo. D. Herron. . .40 .75 

•e tt™^tto IA Traveler, from Altruria. By William Dean 

38. Howells ^ Howells 50 1.50 

29. Hugo LesMiserables. By Victor Hugo 1.25 

on n ITVI ,-, r S Social Diseases and Worse Remedies. By 

d0. Mlxlfa ^ Thomas H. Huxley, F.R.S 15 

31. Jeffries The Toilers of the Field . By Richard Jeffries.. 2.0© 

32. Jeffries The Story of My Heart. By Richard Jeffries.. 1.25 

m i^m,* S Money and the Mechanism of Exchange. By 

■* J4AOJSb J Prof . W. Stanley Jevons, F.R.S 30 .75 

Capital : A Critical Analysis of Capitalistic Pro- 
duction. By Karl Marx. Translated from 
the third German Edition by Samuel Moore 
and Edward Aveling, and edited byFrederick 
Engels. The only American Edition, Care- 
fully Revised - 1.20 1.75 

35. Kidd Social Evolution . By Benjamin Kidd 25 1. 00 

36. Kingsley Alton Locke . By Charles Kingsley 20 .75 

37. Kingsley Yeast . By Charles Kingsley 20 .75 

oft Ti ft v n i Wealth against Commonwealth. By Henrv D. 

*°- ^ LOYD \ Lloyd 2.50 

on atttt I Elements of Political Economy. By John 

° y ' MILL \ Stuart Mill 1,25 

40. Mill Utilitarianism . By John Stuart Mill 15 

41 iir TTT j The Socialism of John Stuart Mill. The only 
' " ( collection of Mill' s Writings on Socialism 25 .75 

( Ideal Commonwealths. Contains More's 

42. Morley < ** Utopia," Bacon's "New Atlantis,' 1 and Cam- 

( panella's " City of the Sun " .40 

( William Morris, Poet, Artist, Socialist. Con- 

43. Morris •< tains "Signs of Change," "A Dream of John 

( Ball," and a Biographical Sketch 25 .75 

44. Morris News from Nowhere. By William Morris ,50 1.00 

d-\ PmrnPR- (History of the Science of Politics. By Freder- 

4 ?. BOLLOCK j ick p oUock 15 

46. Post Driven from Sea to Sea . By C. C. Post 50 1.25 

( What Is Property ? An Inquiry into the Prin- 

47. Proudhon < ciple of Right and of Government. By P. J. 

( Proudhon 1.20 2 00 



SELECT LIST OF BOOKS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SUBJECTS. 



48. 



55. 



56. 



58. 



60. 



61. 



62. 



Author. 



f Darwinism and Politics. 

Ritchie and ! M.A 

Huxley 1 Administrative Nihilism. 

[ F.R.S 



Title of Book. Paper. Cloth, 

By David G. Ritchie, 

By Thomas Huxley, 



.15 



f Six Centuries of Work and Wages. By James 
40 Tfnr™* I E - Thorold Rogers, M. P. Abridged with 

<u. itoGERb <j cnarts and summary . By W. D. P. Bliss. 

[ Introduction by Prof. R. T. Ely 25 

50. Rus How the Other Half Lives. By Jacob A . Riis. . 

( The Communism of John Ruskin. Contains 

51. Ruskin -< ''Unto This Last, 11 "Crown of Wild Olive. 11 

( and selections from l k Fors Clavigera 25 



Q «„V™»r« j The Quintessence of Socialism. 

SCHAFFLE j Schlffle 



By Prof. A. 



.15 
Schreiner Dreams. By Olive Schreiner 25 



52. 

53. 

( The Coming Slavery ; The S ; ns of Legislators; 

54. Spencer •< The Great Political Superstition . By Herbert 

( Spencer 15 



a™™™ S The Economics of Herbert Spencer. 
SpENCER \ Owen 



ByW. C. 



C™ . nxT. J Socialism from Genesis to Revelation. By Rev. 
^PRAGUE -j F M Sprague 

k~ o^™,,^, j Horace Greeley and Other Pioneers of Ameri- 
5 ' • bOTHERAN -j can Socialism _ By Charles Sotheran 



.25 



.35 



rp.^T ^r> J Profit Sharing between Capital and Labor. Six 
lAYLOR I Essays. By Sedley Taylor 15 



59. Thoreau. 



( Walden ; or, Life in the Woods. 
) Thoreau 



By H. D. 



fThe Industrial Revolution of the Eighteenth 
Century in England. Popular Addresses, 
'rvwxTT>T__ J Notes, and Other Fragments. By the late 
l oynbee <j Arnold Toynbee, Tutor of Baliol College, Ox- 
ford. Together with a short memoir by B. 
t Jowett, Master of Baliol College, Oxford 60 



Wayland Things As I See Them 

Wilde.... 



j The Soul of Man under Socialism. By Oscar 
1 Wilde 



.05 



.15 



WOLLSTONE- 
CRAFT 



C4. Woods. 



( Metzerott, Shoemaker. By Katherine Pearson 
' * ] Woods 



1.50 



1.00 



A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. With 
Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects. By 
Mary W T ollstonecraft. New Edition, with an 
[ Introduction by Mrs. Henry Fa wcett. 60 1,00 



J. 50 



Rooks in SELECT LIST can be ordered of any Bookseller, Newsdealer 
or ufthe Humboldt Publishing Company, 64 Fifth Avenue, IVew York. 



Conoenseo Catalogue 

OF THE 

*IE)umbolbt%tbrars 

of Science. 

if cents a number. — Double numbers jo cents. 

i. Light Science for Leisure Hours Proctor. 

2. Forms of Water in Clouds, Rivers, &c. . . .Tyndall. 

Double number. — 30 cents. 

3. Physics and Politics Bagehot. 

4. Man's Place in Nature Huxley. 

5. Education: Intellectual, Moral, Physical. . .Spencer. 

6. Town Geology Kingsley. 

7. The Conservation of Energy Stewart. 

8. The Study of Languages Marcel. 

9. The Data of Ethics .Spencer. 

10. Theory of Sound in Relation to Music . . . Blaserna. 

11 (The Naturalist on the River Amazons.) Batfs 

12 \ Two numbers in one. — 30 cents. J'f" ' 

13. Mind and Body >. . .Bain. 

14. The Wonders of the Heavens Flammarion. 

15. Longevity: Means of Prolonging Life ,.,.. Gardner. 

16. On The Origin of Species „ Huxley. 

17. Progress : Its Law and Cause Spencer. 

18. Lessons in Electricity Tyndall. 

19. Familiar Essays on Scientific Subjects Proctor. 

20. The Romance of Astronomy Miller. 

21. The Physical Basis of Life Huxley. 

22. Seeing and Thinking , Clifford. 

23. Scientific Sophisms , . . Wainwright. 

24. Popular Scientific Lectures Helmholtz. 

25. The Origin of Nations .Rawlinson. 

26. The Evolutionist at Large.., Grant Allen. 

27. The History of Landholding in England . . . Fisher. 

f Fashion in Deformity Flower. 

I Manners and Fashion Spencer. 



Humboldt Library of Science. 

29. Facts and Fictions of Zoology Wilson. 

30. The Study of Words. — Part I. ) Trench. 

31. The Study of Words.— Part II J " 

32. Hereditary Traits Proctor. 

33. Vignettes from Nature Grant Allen. 

( The Philosophy of Style Spencer. 

34 I The Mother Tongue Bain. 

35. Oriental Religions Caird. 

36. Lectures on Evolution Huxley. 

37. Lectures on Light Tyndall. 

38. Geological Sketches. — Part I. ) Geikie. 

39. Geological Sketches. — Part II. J 

/ Scientific Evidence of Organic Evolution . . Romanes. 

40 ] Paleontology and Doctrine of Evolution . . . Huxley. 

I Natural Selection and Natural Theology .. Conder. 

41. Current Discussions in Science Williams. 

42. History of the Science of Politics Pollock. 

43. Darwin and Humboldt Huxley — Agassiz. 

44. The Dawn of History. — Part I.\ v 

45. The Dawn of History. — Part II. J " 

46. The Diseases of Memory Ribot. 

47. The Childhood of Religions Clodd. 

48. Life in Nature Hinton. 

49. The Sun : Its Constitution, Phenomena, &c Carr. 

50 ( Money and the Mechanism of Exchange. ) T 

51 I Two Parts.— 15 cents each. J Jevons. 

52. The Diseases of the Will. Ribot. 

53. Animal Automatism Huxley. 

54. The Birth and Growth of Myths Clodd. 

55. The Scientific Basis of Morals Clifford. 

56. Illusions : A Psychological Study. Part I. ) 

57. Illusions : A Psychological Study. Part II. J* SuLLY - 

58. The Origin of Species.^ Two Parts. "I D 

59. The Origin of Species. J 3° cents each, j •••- L ' AKWIN - 

60. The Childhood of the World Clodd. 

61. Miscellaneous Essays Proctor. 

62. The Religions of the Ancient World. . .Rawlinson. 

Double number. — 30 cents. 



Humboldt Library of Science. 

63. Progressive Morality Fowler. 

g (Distribution of Life, Animal and Vege-) Wallace. 
4 \ table, in Space and Time } Dyer. 

65. Conditions of Mental Development Clifford. 

66. Technical Education Huxley. 

67. The Black Death Hecker. 

, c ( Laws in General — Origin of Animal Wor- ) c ._ vrr _ p 
08 \ ship— Political Fetichism.— 10 cents. ) bPENCEK - 

69. Fetichism. Contribution to Anthropology'. .Schultze. 

Double number. — 30 cents. 

70. Essays, Speculative and Practical Spencer. 

{Anthropology Wilson. 
Archaeology Tylor . 

72. The Dancing Mania of the Middle Ages. . .Hecker. 

73. Evolution in History,Language,and Science j a!!!!^ 

74 f Descent of Man, — Part I. ) 

75 I Descent of Man.— Part II. ! Darwin. 

76 1 Descent of Man.— Part III. j 

77 { Descent of Man.— Part IV. j 

No. 77 is a double number. — 30 cents. 

78. Distribution of Land in England Birkbeck. 

79. Scientific Aspects of Familiar Things Williams. 

80. Charles Darwin: His Life and Work. .Grant Allen. 

Double number. — 30 cents. 

81. Mystery of Matter — Philosophy of Ignorance. Picton. 

82. Illusions of the Senses Proctor. 

83. Profit-sharing between Capital and Labor. .Taylor. 

84. Studies of Animated Nature 

I. Bats — Dragon-Flies Dallas. 

II. Glow-worm — Phosphorescent Animals. .Chisholm. 
III. Minute Organisms Balkwell. 

85. The Essential Nature of Religion Picton. 

oc. (The Unseen Universe — Philosophy of ) r«.« — «» 
86 { the Pure Sciences j • -Clifford. 

87. The Morphine Habit (Morphinomania) Ball. 

88. Science and Crime Wilson. 

( The Genesis of Science Spencer. 

y 1 Coming of Age of " Origin of Species " Huxley. 

90. Notes on Earthquakes. ." Proctor. 



Hu77iboldt Library of Science. 

91. The Rise of Universities Laurie. 

Double number. — 30 cents. 

92. The Formation of Vegetable Mould Darwin. 

Double number. — 30 cents. 

( Scientific Methods of Capital Punishment. . .Bleyer. 

(infliction of the Death Penalty Benjamin. 

Special number. — 10 cents. 

94. The Factors of Organic Evolution Spencer. 

95. The Diseases of Personality Ribot. 

( A Half-Century of Science Huxley. 

I Progress of Science from 1836 to 1886 . . Grant Allen. 

97. The Pleasures of Life. — Part I Lubbock. 

98. Cosmic Emotion — Teaching of Science. .. .Clifford. 

Special number. — 10 cents. 

99. Nature-Studies.— I. Flame Lowe. 

II. Birds of Passage Brown. 

III. Snow Chisholm. 

IV. Caves Dallas. 

100. Science and Poetry Wilson. 

( ^Esthetics — Dreams Sully. 

101 i 

I Association of Ideas Robertson. 

102. Ultimate Finance. — Part I Black. 

iod I Coming Slavery— Sins of Legislators—) q PFxrrFR 
103 \ Great Political Superstition } Spencer. 

104. Tropical Africa . Drummond. 

105. Freedom in Science and Teaching Haeckel. 

106. Force and Energy Grant Allen. 

107. Ultimate Finance. — Part II Black. 

108. English: Past and Present. — Part I.) ...Trench- 

109. English: Past and Present. — Part II.) 

No. 108 is a double number. — 30 cents. 

i 10. The Story of Creation Clodd. 

Double number. — 30 cents. 

in. The Pleasures of Life. — Part II Lubbock. 

112. The Psychology of Attention Ribot. 

113. Hypnotism: History and Development . Bjornstrom. 

Double number. — 30 cents. 

(Christianity and Agnosticism.) Huxley, Bishop of 

* ( A controversy J Peterboro,& others. 

Double number. — 30 cents. 



Humboldt Library of Science. 

115 (Darwinism: Exposition of the Theory) , I7 

116 1 of Natural Selection } Wallace. 

Two double numbers. — 30 cents each. 

117. Modern Science and Modern Thought Laing. 

Part I. — Double number. — 30 cents. 

118. Modern Science and Modern Thought Laing. 

Part II. — Single number. — 15 cents. 

-9 { Th t e ric E x^ gh !7 Th . e . s :? rin . s . o . f m T.\ M— . 

^ (The Modern Theory of Heat— The Sun) w-„ WJW 

120 { as a Storehouse of Energy ) MoLLOV ■ 

121. Utilitarianism , John Stuart Mill. 

122 J Origin of Alpine and Italian \ Ramsay, Ball, Mur- 

1 Lakes.— Part I.— 30 cents. £ chison, Studer, 
._. (Origin of Alpine and Italian ( Favre, Whymper, 

°\ Lakes.— Part II.— 1 5 cents. ; Spencer. 
124. The Quintessence of Socialism Schaffle. 

( Darwinism and Politics Ritchie. 

( Administrative Nihilism Huxley. 

126 (Physiognomy and Expression Mantegazza. 

127 \ Two double numbers. — 30 cents each. 

128 (The Industrial Revolution in England. . .Toynbee. 

129 \ Two double numbers. — 30 cents each. 

130 ( The Origin of the Aryans Taylor. 

131 I Two double numbers. — 30 cents each. 

132 (The Evolution of Sex Geddes — Thomson. 

133 ( Two double numbers. — 30 cents each. 

134. The Law of Private Right. — 30 cents Smith. 

135. Capital. — Part I. 1 

136. Capital.— Part II. _ 

~ . , _ TTT Y Karl Marx. 

137. Capital.— Part III. 

138. Capital.— Part IV. J 

Four double numbers. — 30 cents each. 
I39 (Lightning, Thunder, and Lightning Con-) MoLLOy# 

140. What is Music ? Rice. 

141. Are the Effects of Use and Disuse Inherited ?. .Ball. 

\% { A Woman. 1 ?". °5. *?. ^T. ?!} Wollstonecraft. 
Two double numbers. — 30 cents each. 

144. Civilization: Its Cause and Cure Carpenter. 

145. Body and Mind Clifford. 



Humboldt Library of Science. 



146. 
147. 



149 
150 

152 

*53 
154 
155 
156 

157 
158 

159' 
160, 
161 
162 

163 
164 

165. 
166, 
167, 



Social Diseases and Worse Remedies Huxley. 

The Soul of Man under Socialism. . .Oscar Wilde. 



{Electricity, the Science of the Nineteenth ) n . 
Century - Part L- 30 cents. j Caillard. 

h] 

} Lank ester. 



( Electricity, the Science of the Nineteenth ) n . 

{ Xentury.-Part II- 15 cents. 
( Degeneration : A Chapter m Dar 
Illustrated 



( winism 

[ Mental Suggestion 



- Part I. 



\ Mental Suggestion. — Part II. 
j Mental Suggestion. — Part III. 

} 



.OCHOROWIC£. 



Mental Suggestion. — Part IV. 

Four double numbers. — 30 cents each. 
Modern Science — Science of the Future. Carpenter. 

Studies in Pessimism Schopenhauer. 

Flowers, Fruits, and Leaves. — Illustr'd. . .Lubbock. 
Double number. — 30 cents. 

Glimpses of Nature.— Illustrated. Wilson. 

Part I. — 30 cents. 

Glimpses of Nature. — Part II Wilson. 

Problems of the Future. — Part I. 

Problems of the Future. — Part II. 

Double number. — 30 cents. \- Laing. 

168 Problems of the Future.— Part III. 
Double number — 30 cents. . 

169. The Moral Teachings of Science ..Buckley. 

170. The Wisdom of Life Schopenhauer. 

Double number. — 30 cents. 

171. The Mystery of Pain Hinton. 

172 ( What is Property ? An Inquiry into ) 

173 J the Principle of Right and of Gov- ( p ROUDHON 

174 J ernment f 

175 ( Four double numbers. — 30 cts. each. ) 

176. History and Scope of Zoology ...... .Lankester. 

177. Evolution and Ethics Huxley. 



.M<t$::#v-mm 




